Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

PRE-WAR PENSION (O. PEARCE, EASTON).

Mr. W. BAKER: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether it was; with his approval that a letter was sent to Mr. O. Pearce, Easton, reference No. 3.294/Fu/M, Who is in receipt of a pension as a single man, and has been married since discharge, informing him that he must forward a certificate from his wife's employer, showing the exact amount of her earnings for the 12 months ended 6th October, 1925, including overtime pay and war bonus, if any, board, lodgings, fuel, or other benefit, and threatening that in the event of this certificate not being forwarded the question of discontinuing the increase of pension will be considered?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The case referred to was not one of disability pension under the Great War Warrants (to which any question as to the wife's income would, of course, be irrelevant), but as to the increase of a pre-War pension under the Regulations made in pursuance of the Pensions Increase Acts, 1920 and 1924. Any grant made under those Acts is determined by the total means of the pensioner. For this purpose a declaration is required in the case of a married couple as to the income, and the sources thereof, of both husband and wife, and it was for the purpose of verifying the amount attributed by the claimant to his wife as her income that inquiry had to be made as to the source of the income and as to the name of the employer if derived from earnings. It will be appreciated that
the increase cannot be granted unless satisfactory proof is forthcoming that the regulations of the Act are fulfilled.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Brigadier-General BROOKE: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions in how many unsuccessful applications for a pension on account of tuberculosis the men concerned were diagnosed as having suffered from the malady before entering the Army; and what weight of medical evidence is required to refute the claim by such applicants that they did not suffer from tuberculosis before entering the Army?

Major TRYON: I regret that the records of my Department do not enable me to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. The second part of the question does not admit of a general answer because the evidence required for the support of a claim necessarily depends upon the circumstances in each case. I can, however, assure my hon. and gallant Friend that all available evidence of whatever character is fully considered by the Ministry before a decision is arrived at.

THOMAS ROBINSON, DENABY MAIN.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 10.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Thomas Robinson, 91, Clifton Street, Denaby Main, who was transferred to the Army Reserve in 1918 suffering from hernia, was awarded a gratuity of £52 10s.; that he has only been able to work indifferently for years because of his injury, and that recently he was operated on for hernia, since which he has been unable to follow any employment at all; and that he has been refused a rehearing and deprived of all opportunities to establish a claim for any pension; and whether he will consider an amendment of the War Pensions Act, 1921, to enable this and similar cases to come before the appeal tribunal?

Major TRYON: The man referred to has received operative treatment from the Ministry and has been supplied with a special truss for the control of his disability. His condition when last examined, after treatment had been given, was not such as to show that his final award was erroneous. No application has been made by the man since his treatment, which would indicate that
the results have not been unsatisfactory, but I am causing inquiry to be made as to his present condition, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so

AREA AND SUB-AREA OFFICES (STAFF).

Mr. J. BECKETT: 16.
asked the Minister of Pensions what was the number of whole-time area and area sub-offices on the 1st November, 1921, 1st November, 1923, let November, 1924, and the 1st November, 1925; what was the number of the staff employed in these offices on each date, respectively; whether it is proposed at an early date to reduce the staff in the area offices and area sub-offices by a further 30 per cent.; and, if so, what steps will be taken to ensure new applications receiving prompt attention and pensioners receiving treatment and medical attention?

Date.
Number of Area Offices.
Number of Whole-time Sub-Offices.
Number of staff employed in Area or Whole-time Sub-Offices.


1st November, 1921
…
No Area Offices had been established under the Act of 1921 at this date.
—
—


1st November, 1923
…
146
87
4,485


1st November, 1924
…
136
94
4,090


1st November, 1925
…
109
102
3,377

The staff of these offices will be adjusted from time to time in accordance with the work, but there is no question of working to a fixed percentage reduction, and the hon. Member may rest assured that the staff will not be reduced beyond the point necessary for the efficient performance of all the duties of the office.

SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE.

Mr. J. BAKER: 21.
asked the Minister of Pensions what was the number of cases considered by the Special Grants Committee during the period 1st January to 1st November, 1925; what was the amount paid in expenses to the Committee during the period; and what was the staff employed on duties appertaining to the Committee, and the cost of their salaries or wages during the same period?

Major TRYON: In the short time at my disposal I am able to furnish approximate

Major TRYON: As the information desired by the hon. Member contains a number of figures, I propose, with his permission, to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. BECKETT: I quite agree, but can the Minister give us any assurance that the present longer delay in dealing with these cases is being remedied?

Major TRYON: I do not agree that there is longer delay, and my recent inquiries in all parts of the country suggest that the cases ere going through well, and in some cases more rapidly than before, but in every case the first consideration is an adequate staff for dealing with the cases, and the second consideration is that the staff is not being retained any longer than it is wanted.

The following is the answer:

figures only. The total number of cases dealt with in the. Special Grants Committee in the first ten months of this year was 34,000. The amount paid to members of the Committee for expenses during that period was £370. This sum represents, of course, out of pocket expenses only. The total clerical and supervising staff employed on the 1st November, 1925, in the Special Grants Committee was 116, and the cost of salaries and wages during the 10 months was £24,300.

CHILD'S PENSION.

Mr. BAKER: 22.
also asked the Minister of Pensions, whether, in the event of a child of a War widow obtaining a situation on reaching the age of 14, a part or the whole of the child's pension is withheld; if so, under what article of the Royal Warrants is this practice followed; and whether, as in some cases his Depart-
merit has stated that the pension will be withheld until the child reaches the age of 21, he will say whether in these cases the child will receive the arrears of pension with compound interest?

Major TRYON: I am not quite clear as to the class of case the hon. Member has in mind. No general rule such as that suggested on the matter in question is in operation. It is, however, the case that in certain exceptional instances, e.g., of neglected children who are statutorily placed under my care, or the children of widows whose pensions have to be administered in trust under the auspices of the Special Grants Committee, the whole or a portion of the allowance while the child is earning may be temporarily withheld and administered in such a manner as best to secure the exclusive interests of the child. In these cases the balance accumulated remains at call for any exceptional expenses of emergency required for the child, and the balance is paid out on the advice of the War Pensions Committee and the Special Grants Committee as and when required. The balance, if any, is not reserved until the age of 21, except in the interests of the child. In some cases a portion of the balance, if any, accumulated is from time to time invested at interest. I am at present considering the general administrative arrangements in this connection.

UNCLAIMED PENSIONS.

Colonel DAY: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions the amount of unclaimed money awaiting claimants in respect of men killed during the Great War; and will he consider the advisability of having a list compiled and deposited in every Post Office in order that all publicity may be given in this regard?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I have been asked to reply. As regards the first part of the question, exact figures cannot readily be given, but the amount is estimated at over £100,000. As regards the second part, under the provisions of the Regimental Debts Act every unclaimed balance is published once a year for seven years in the "London Gazette," and for several years after the War the "London
Gazette" lists were exhibited in all the principal post offices, and notices drawing attention to these lists, with instructions how claims should be made, were shown in all post offices. In this way, and by notices in the Press, these estates have been widely advertised, and I do not think the method suggested by the hon. Member would be more effective. The amounts undisposed of after seven years are handed over to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation for the benefit of relatives of deceased soldiers.

Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that, if these lists were given more prominence at the post offices, and notices put on them that the names of the dependants could be inspected, then there might be more claims made for this unclaimed money?

Captain KING: If the hon. and gallant Member will read my answer, he will see that that was done for several years, and they are still published every year in the "Gazette."

Colonel DAY: And will be?

Captain KING: They are being.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (ESTABLISHMENT).

Colonel DAY: 23.
asked the Home Secretary what steps are being taken to increase the establishment of the Metropolitan Police in order to meet the need following the extensive erection of houses and the multiplying duties of the police?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a reduction was made in the strength of the police as a measure of economy in 1922. I have had the position under review and, having regard to the growing demands upon the Metropolitan Police, I have felt justified in authorising the Commissioner to slightly accelerate recruiting. I have, however, to keep in mind the continued need for economy.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not a fact that London is continually growing more law-abiding?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That does not seem to agree quite with the question on the Paper by the hon. and gallant Member.

Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that the Commissioner of Police himself recommends increasing the establishment of the Metropolitan Police?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, that is so, but the ultimate responsibility must rest with the Secretary of State, and I have to consider the question of economy as well as the police.

Mr. HARRIS: Does not a great deal of the cost of the Metropolitan Police fall on the local rates, which have therefore to be considered?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I agree; I have to consider all questions, both central and local.

ALIENS (DEPORTATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 85.
asked the Home Secretary what were the offences charged against the Russians Edward Getz and Joseph Kilnas, on which he recommended them for deportation?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As explained in the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member last Thursday, I made deportation orders in the case of the two aliens referred to because, after careful consideration, I was satisfied that it was conducive to the public good to do so. In accordance with the powers entrusted to me by Parliament, it is within my discretion, if I am so satisfied, to make a deportation order, although no offence against the law may have been committed. I am not required to state the. reasons for my decision, nor do I think it would be desirable for me to do so; but I may add that in any such case I consider carefully the whole circumstances and weigh the public advantage against any possible hardship to the individual concerned.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not question the right hon. Gentleman's power, but why does he object to telling me what the offences were?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I really do not see why I should make a personal favour to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I need hardly tell the right hon. Gentleman that I meant the House, of course, and not me personally.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I say I do not think it would be in accordance with the public interest to give the reasons why these powers are exercised in any case.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the fact that the right hon. Gentleman can issue his ukase and pick out anyone who happens to be a foreigner and send him out of the country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is exactly the power which Parliament has entrusted to me. It remains for me to exercise those powers in such a way as to secure the continued confidence of Parliament.

Mr. MACLEAN: If the Home Secretary has the powers he says he possesses, will he not exercise them somewhat more drastically than he is doing with regard to those foreigners who are carrying on the dope traffic and the procuring of foreign women into this country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should be most grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he would give me details of any of those cases. I have during the current year deported several cases of dope traffic and of prostitution traffic as well.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is there any way by which we can challenge the action of the Home Secretary other than across the Floor of the House of Commons, and is he to be exempt from our criticism because he says he is not required to give us an account of the deeds done in the body?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can move to reduce his salary, or even to extinguish it.

REVOLVER LICENCES.

Major GLYN: 28.
asked the Home Secretary how many licences have been issued by the police authorities in England and Wales to persons desiring
to purchase revolvers for the period 1st September, 1924, to 1st September, 1925; how many applications have been refused; and on what grounds are permits issued to persons other than those whose connection with one or other of the fighting services requires them to be in possession of such weapons?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The information asked for is not in my possession, but is contained in the records kept by the various police forces. Its extraction and collection would involve an expenditure of both time and trouble. The circumstances in which Firearm Certificates may properly be granted by Chief Officers of Police are indicated in the Firearms Act, 1920.

INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (BURSITIS).

Mr. TINKER: 29.
asked the Home Secretary if a decision has been reached in regard to the inclusion of bursitis in the schedule of industrial diseases for miner's beat knee?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Proposals for amending the present descriptions in the schedule of miner's beat knee and miner's beat elbow were referred by me in July last to the Mining Association and Miners' Federation for observations, but neither body has so far furnished me with its views on the subject and at the present moment when they are so much occupied with other matters I should be reluctant to press for a reply.

Mr. TINKER: What information does the right hon. Gentleman want?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want the views of the two bodies named, on the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, as to whether this disease shall be included in the Industrial Diseases Schedule; I want the fullest information before I take action.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 30.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that as a result of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, the qualifying period for the ordinary insured
worker is only two years, whereas under the Police Act, 1921, a policeman must have five years' service, 1st September, 1918, in order that his widow may become eligible for a pension; and whether he will take steps to see that the policeman is not penalised in comparison with the civilian and have the Police Act amended accordingly?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am aware that the scheme of widows' pensions provided by the Police Pensions Act, 1921, while on the whole not less favourable than the provision made by the Act passed this year is less favourable in certain details and more favourable in others The points of difference will be taken into consideration at the first suitable opportunity, but there is no possibility of legislation on the subject being introduced this Session.

Mr. J. BAKER: 81.
asked the Minister of Health whether or not the number of applicants for widows' pensions has reached the estimate of the actuary who advised the Department; and, if not, can he say if he has any information showing that widows receiving Poor Law relief are not applying for pensions owing to a fear of losing such relief if they do so?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The number of applications for widows' pensions has not yet reached the estimate, but I would remind the hon. Member that claim forms have been available for less than three months. It has been suggested that certain widows may be deterred from claiming by the fear of losing Poor Law relief, but I have no specific information on the point. A circular has, however, been issued to boards of guardians with the object of removing any misapprehension which may exist on this matter.

SHOP HOURS ACT.

Mr. BRIANT: 31.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the objectional method used by some of the inspectors under the Shop Hours Act, by which traders are induced to commit breaches of the law and are then prosecuted; and if he will take such steps as are necessary to prevent the obtaining of convictions by such means?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have received no recent representations on the subject, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will tell me to what he refers.

Mr. BRIANT: Do I understand from the answer that the suggestion is that no such procedure has been taken?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Gentleman will remember that shop inspectors are officers of the local authorities. I have only received one complaint, and that was in April; but if there are any further complaints I will look into them.

ELECTORAL REGISTERS.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 32.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in the interests of economy and in view of the fact that the spring register of electors is very rarely used, he will consider altering the law so that one register only shall be required, thereby effecting a saving of nearly £500,000 every year?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. The Government has considered this suggestion for effecting economies but there is, I fear, no chance of passing the necessary legislation in this Session.

ESCAPE OF ELEPHANT, WHETSTONE.

Mr. CADOGAN: asked the Home Secretary whether he can take any steps to prevent the recurrence of the incident which took place in Whetstone on Sunday, 29th November, when an elephant broke loose from its conveyance in the Great North Road and caused considerable damage to neighbouring property?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: asked the Home Secretary whether he has information as to the recapture of the elephant which broke loose on Sunday-while being conveyed in a float from the Barnet menagerie to Whitechapel; what casualties resulted; what damage was done; whether the elephant has now been safely removed to its destination; whether he will take immediate steps to test and ensure the sufficiency of any conveyance to be used for the tranport of wild or potentially dangerous animals; and whether he can give an assurance that adequate powers exist and
will be exercised under his own or other authority to secure the safety of the public from the escape of wild animals in course of transit?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I propose to answer these two questions together. I have no information other than what has appeared in the Press, and no power to interfere in the matter. As far as I am aware, there are no statutory provisions governing the subject. Any person who keeps a wild or potentially dangerous animal is liable for any damage it may cause; and the theory of the law is that this is sufficient provision for the safety of the public. I am afraid I cannot promise to introduce any special legislation.

Mr. CADOGAN: Have any steps been taken to prosecute this company, or whatever it is, for bringing an elephant into my constituency?

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to have the elephant taken up for mutiny?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no evidence up to the present of the political views of the elephant.

HON. MEMBERS: "Now we know!" and "Political bias!" [Interruption.]

Colonel WOODCOCK: Cannot this elephant be sent to the Isle of Lewis, where they want wild animals?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is this not only one of the animals of the menagerie, and has not serious trouble been caused before in this establishment by a zebra and other animals breaking loose in this way, to the consternation and danger of the public?

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that these violent aliens are deported?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, N. (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle), all I can say is that I have heard of similar trouble in regard to these menageries. So far as I know, or can find out, the police have no powers to prevent menageries travelling, the only condition being, as I say in the original answer, that anyone who keeps wild animals is responsible for any damage that they do.

ARRESTED PERSONS (POLICE REGULATIONS).

Brigadier-General BROOKE: 35.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has communicated to the authorities controlling the police outside London, as well as to the Metropolitan Police, the instructions issued as to the facilities for communicating between arrested prisoners and their friends; and, if not, whether he will take such action without delay?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The position of the provincial police forces differs in many respects from that of the Metropolitan Police, but I propose to take the first convenient opportunity of addressing a communication to them on several points arising out of the recent inquiry.

FASCISTI ORGANISATION.

Mr. W. BAKER: 38.
asked the. Home Secretary if he will publish the terms of his recent instruction to the police that the law was to be fairly applied as from that date?

Mr. DALTON: 40.
asked the Home Secretary on what date he recently issued instructions to the police that equal justice was to be meted out to all; whether such instructions were in writing; if so, whether he will communicate the text to this House; and, if not, how they were issued and what was their substance?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On learning of the seizure of the "Daily Herald" van, I gave personal instructions to one of the Commissioners of Police that if there was reason to think that any Fascist organisation had, in fact, instigated this action, every effort should be made to obtain evidence which would lead to the conviction of those responsible, since, of course, the law must be administered with complete impartiality. My view was acted upon by the police.

Mr. BECKETT: Would the right hon. Gentleman use the same methods of finding out what the Fascisti are doing, as he uses to find out what is done by the Communists?

Mr. LANSBURY: Put some one under the platform.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) will give me any information at all, or tell me of anything suspicious that will lead to the conclusion that there is a reasonable opportunity of finding out that the Fascisti or any other organisation is about to commit crime, it will be my duty to investigate it to the utmost of my power.

Mr. BECKETT: May I put it, Mr. Speaker, that it is not for me or others to give the Home Secretary information. It is his place to find out?

Mr. LANSBURY: Are not the Criminal Investigation Department aware that a pictorial newspaper published a photograph of two of these armed gentlemen in arms, with black shirts, and everything else? No action has been taken in regard to them at all. Why should not the same trouble be taken to find out the doctrines of these gentlemen as is done about the Communists? Put people at their meetings—spies and so on?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is rather a large point for a supplementary question.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the Department of the right hon. Gentleman ever intercepted letters, correspondence, and work of these organisations?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That, I think, is really a question which ought not to be put, either to the Home Secretary or other Minister.

CLUBS (METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 26.
asked the Home Secretary how many clubs have been raided by the police during the past three years; in how many cases convictions have been secured; how many permanently closed; and the aggregate amount of the fines imposed; whether their stocks of spirits, etc., were sequestrated; and, if so, in what way are such stocks disposed of and to what account are the proceeds of sale placed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I assume the hon. Member's question refers to clubs in the Metropolitan Police District. On this assumption, I have obtained the information for which he asks, but as a full reply would be long
and contain a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When the right hon. Gentleman circulates these figures will he distinguish between what are generally known as night clubs, and other clubs?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman who put the question consents I will endeavour to do that.

Mr. YOUNG: initiated assent.

Following is the reply promised:

The following are the particulars as to proceedings against Clubs in the Metropolitan Police District between 1st December, 1922, and 30th November, 1925.

(1) Number of clubs entered by virtue of a Search Warrant



(a)Registered
107


(b)Unregistered
8


(2) Number of clubs in relation to which convictions have been obtained
107


In addition, proceedings are pending against 5 of the clubs shown in (1).



(3) Number of cases in which the premises were temporarily disqualified
69


(4) Total amount of (a) fines and (b) costs imposed upon the persons responsible for management and control.

There is no power to close a club permanently. The Act provides for the die-qualification of club premises for a limited period only.

Stocks of liquor were sequestered in seven of the above cases. In four, the liquor, which was of trifling amount, was destroyed. In one case a decision is now pending regarding the disposal of the property. In the remaining two cases considerable amounts were seized and sold by auction, the proceeds being credited to that portion of the Police Fund Account devoted to Police Court expenses.

MAINTENANCE OF ESSENTIAL SERVICES.

Mr. MACLEAN: 39.
asked the Home Secretary the amount which the organisation for the maintenance of essential services mentioned by him at Isleworth is costing per month, and if any Supplementary Estimate will be submitted to meet the expense; and, if not, whether he can state to what Vote those expenses will be charged?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The total expenditure which is being incurred at present in this connection is estimated at approximately £l,000 per month. The expenditure of each of the Departments concerned is being charged to its own Vote, and it is not anticipated that any-Supplementary Estimate will be required on this account.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the expenses of this organisation, which are being covered by several Departments, be set down in the Votes of each of these Departments specifically as money devoted to this particular organisation?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid the hon. Member must ask the representative of the Treasury as to that. I am not responsible for the Estimates of other Departments. The Treasury look through them all.

Mr. MACLEAN: But with regard to the Vote of the right hon. Gentleman's own Department, will his accountants see to it that the expenses which his Department has to bear on behalf of this organisation are stated specifically, so that we can have a definite Debate upon the expense of this organisation?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In regard to the question of debates I must refer the hon. Member to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury or the Prime Minister. All I can say is that an officer of my Department, an officer of the Board of Trade and officers of other Departments are engaged on a certain amount of work in connection with supply and transport organisation, exactly as was the case under previous Governments, and if the hon. Member desires to raise the work of those officers I take it he can do that on my Vote, or the Board of Trade Vote, or Votes of the other Department.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether any money has been paid over to the Organisation for Maintenance of Supplies?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Oh, no. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) was questioning me about the official Government organisation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: No. It says the organisation for the maintenance of supplies.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The voluntary organisation to which the hon. Member refers in his supplementary question is not subsidised in any shape or form by the Government.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that the Government are not going to finance these people who volunteer service?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question ought to We put down.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

STATE CONTRIBUTIONS (CIRCULAR 1,371).

Mr. HARRIS: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education why a circular has been issued to education authorities stating the Board's intention to reduce the grant by 30s. per child for children attending school under five years of age; and whether the suggestion has been made by the Board of Education authorities to give only partial instruction to children between the acres of five and six years of age?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I assume that the hon. Member refers to Circular 1,371. As regards both parts of the question, I would refer him to the first paragraph of the Note to the Appendix on page 4 of the Circular.

Mr. HARRIS: Does not this amount to a suggestion that the contribution from the Board of Education is to be reduced from 30s. to 5s., and will it not have the effect of discouraging educational authorities from keeping these children at school? Will not that affect in particular very poor districts, because it is only in very poor districts that these children are sent to school, on account of the very bad home conditions there? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that in mind in pressing forward this Regulation?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Will the mothers who will now have to look after these "under fives," who may have had to work to help to earn the living for the home, be regarded in these circumstances as not genuinely seeking work?

Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Members who put their supplementary questions will refer to the circular they will see that I have already had those considerations very much in mind, and have drawn attention to them in the circular.

Mr. PALING: May I ask the Noble Lord whether he did not put this reduction in operation for the express purpose of discouraging parents from sending to school their children under five years of age?

Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member will refer to the circular he will see that that is not the case.

Captain GEE: Is it not clear that people who live in good residential districts are taking advantage of this, although they could well afford nurses to look after their children?

Mr. COVE: In view of the tremendous-criticism that this circular has met with, especially the part dealing with children under five, will the Noble Lord now consider withdrawing it?

Lord E. PERCY: There is a question on that point later on.

Mr. PALING: Is it the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that children under five ought not to attend school?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children under five years of age now attending the public elementary schools; and also the corresponding figures last year and in 1913?

Lord E. PERCY: The numbers (on the registers) are as follow:


31st March, 1925
221,797


31st March, 1924
211,348


31st January, 1913
300,899

Mr. W. THORNE: Has the Noble Lord got any figures to show the number of local authorities that allow children under five years of age to go to school?

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, I have got figures.

Mr. THORNE: Would the Noble Lord mind supplying Members with them?

Lord E. PERCY: I will see whether that can be done.

Mr. HARRIS: Do not these figures suggest that this grant has not been unduly taken advantage of, and that education authorities have only used this discretion where it was really necessary, where poverty required special treatment?

Lord E. PERCY: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. PALING: Does the Noble Lord consider those figures too high?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think we can argue that now.

Mr. COVE: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Education, whether Circular 1,371 cancels the provisions of Circular 1,358 issued on 31st March last; and, if not, Low does he propose to meet the progressive expenditure involved in the plans demanded from local education authorities by Circular 1,358?

Mr. TREVELYAN: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Education, whether, in view of the stereotyping of the Government grant proposed in Circular 1,371, he intends to withdraw Circular 1,358, of 31st March of this year, which called for programmes of a progressive and continuous character from local education authorities, which were not required to be submitted till the end of this year or even Easter 1926, or whether he has any schemes in view for making such programmes effective without increased assistance from the national Exchequer?

Lord E. PERCY: I will, if I may. answer these questions together. As regards the relation of Circular 1,371 to the programme procedure, I would refer the hon. Members to the last paragraph but two of the Circular. While the grant which it is proposed to fix for the year 1926–27 will be guaranteed as a minimum for not less than three years, it does not follow that the grant will necessarily be limited to that amount during each of the years falling within the programme period contemplated in Circular 1,358. I
think, indeed, that Circular 1,371 makes it more, rather than less, necessary that local authorities and the board should review the whole field of their responsibilities, both as regards existing expenditure and as regards necessary new services, and I anticipate that the discussions which I have invited local authorities to hold with me in the immediate future will, in fact, be based upon the programmes which they have been engaged in preparing.

Mr. COVE: Is it the intention of the Noble Lord to have a consultation with the local authorities individually, or in their collective capacity through their national organisations?

Lord E. PERCY: In the first instance I have asked the three English national organisations and the Welsh national organisations to meet me collectively. Of course, I shall be consulting individual authorities.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that this has an effect on Scottish education, will the Minister consider consulting the Scottish authorities?

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, I have considered that, and I have consulted them.

Mr. COVE: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the Circular issued on the 25th November by the Board of Education to local education authorities, stating in effect that they proposed to abandon the method of awarding grants on the 50 per cent. basis, and that the Board had decided to award grants in future at the discretion of the Board, he will say when it is proposed to introduce legislation with a view to repealing the provisions with respect to grants contained in the Act of 1921; and what saving to the national Exchequer is anticipated?

Lord E. PERCY: The legislation necessary for the introduction of a block grant system will be laid before the House at the earliest practicable date after Christmas. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Penistone, a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. COVE: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes to reduce the grant to local
education authorities by a sum of 30s. in respect of each child under the age of five years whose name appears on the school register on 31st March, 1925; and what sum he estimates the national Exchequer will save thereby?

Lord E. PERCY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have given to-day to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Herbert Williams).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that this circular is likely to retard the building of new schools and retard the development of the mining districts.

Lord E. PERCY: I quite appreciate the hon. Member's question, and, as he knows, I have been over the ground myself. I do not think that that will be the case, and I certainly do not intend that to be the case. He may rest assured that I am considering very closely the peculiar position of the West Riding.

Mr. COVE: Will the noble Lord agree to withdraw this circular until he has considered all these relevant matters, and until he has consulted the representatives of the education authorities?

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member seems very anxious that I should answer that question before the question on the same subject which is down on the Paper.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that the Board of Education have intimated to local education authorities that they propose to introduce a new code, he will say whether the regulations under this code will be confined to the minimum requirements for the purpose of grant; and whether he can state what are the minimum requirements which he contemplates embodying in the regulations?

Lord E. PERCY: The Board are reviewing all their regulations, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement as to the form and contents of the revised code.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the importance of Circular No. 1,371, will the Minister consider laying the contents of that circular in the form of a White Paper?

Lord E. PERCY: Copies of the circular have been in the Vote Office for the last two or three days, and if there are not sufficient there I will see that more are provided.

Mr. COVE: Does the phrase "minimum requirements" mean that there is an intention to limit the curriculum, scope and functions of elementary schools?

Lord E. PERCY: No, on the contrary. I hope to have a great deal less interference with the curriculum by the central authorities than in the past.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Will the light hon. Gentleman also put into the Vote Office the explanations which he has issued from day to day to the newspapers as to what the circular means?

Mr. T. THOMSON: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that his recent Circular on education finance has caused considerable alarm amongst local education authorities on the grounds that, if its proposals are carried out, either the present standard of education must be reduced or an additional burden will be placed on the local rates; and, with regard to the proposed reduction in the grant for children under five years of age, will he consider the possibility of exempting industrial areas from this change?

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member may rest assured that I am in close touch with local authorities. In reply to the second part of the question, I can only say that I shall be ready to discuss the details of the new proposals in their application to the area of any particular authority.

Mr. BRIANT: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Education if, considering the effect of the Circular 1,371 issued by his Department on the education of young children, he will withdraw the Circular until such time as the House may have an opportunity of considering the questions involved?

Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir. The fact that in Circular 1,371 I have asked for
the advice of local authorities on its contents is the best guarantee that the problems indicated by the hon. Member will be fully considered.

ADULT EDUCATION (TUTORS).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many, at present, full-time and part-time tutors, respectively, are engaged in adult education outside universities for which the Board of Education accepts financial responsibility; the number of men and women students receiving tuition from these tutors; and an analysis of the subjects taught; and whether he has any plans for the extension of this work?

Lord E. PERCY: As the reply to this question contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:

During the 12 months which ended on the 31st July last, 613 tutors were engaged in local classes recognised by the Board under the Adult Education Regulations. I understand that 20 were staff tutors.

The numbers of students were:


Men
12,861


Women
9,592


Total
22,453

The subjects taught have been analysed as follows:



Number of classes.


1. Economics (including industrial history and geography)
313


2. Literature and language
243


3. History
108


4. Sociology
105


5. Æsthetics (music, art, drama)
99


6. Philosophy
97


7. Natural science
28


8. Other subjects
5



998

The Board are providing for an increase of 467 classes during the 12 months ending 31st July, 1926. As regards future years, I am at present in consultation with the responsible bodies.

TEACHERS' SALARIES (BURNHAM SCALE).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is the policy of the Government to see that all local education authorities pay their teachers in accordance with the Burnham scale of salaries; and, if so, what steps does he propose to take to ensure this being done?

Lord E. PERCY: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my published letter of 15th June last to Lord Burnham, and as regards the second part, to my reply of 26th November to the right hon. Member for Newcastle Central (Mr. Trevelyan), a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon he proposes to take these steps?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not think I can make any announcement on that subject. At least as everyone who is in touch with this question knows, I have ever since the Burnham Award been taking steps of this kind.

Mr. CHARLES CROOK: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board accepted the allocation of scales of salaries to local education authorities which were agreed by the Burnham Committee; whether Essex was allocated Scale III in the schedule of such scales; and whether he has proposed that allocation should be varied without reference to the arbitrator or the Burnham Committee?

Lord E. PERCY: As regards the first part of the question, the Board accepted the allocation of scales for the purpose of their recognition for grant of the expenditure involved thereby. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative. The answer to the third part is that I made no such proposal, as I was only concerned to determine whether the action taken by the authority was or was not so unreasonable as to call for any adjustment of the grant.

Mr. COVE: Is that decision not a violation of an arbitral award arrived at by agreement? And I would like to ask whether the Government is now going to support decisions of an independent arbitrator such as Lord Burnham?

Lord E. PERCY: My decision was one taken on my responsibility to this House for the distribution of grants to local authorities voted by this House, and anything I do in discharge of that responsibility cannot be a violation of an arbitral award.

Mr. COVE: When an award is arrived at by a process of arbitration, should it not be put into effect?

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member knows that, or should know, as I have already stated that I have consistently taken steps to that effect ever since the award was issued.

Mr. PALIN: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Education why he has advised the local education authority for Essex and the teachers of the county to enter into local negotiations to determine their scale or scales of salaries, having regard to the fact that Lord Burnham's arbitral award was accepted by the Board of Education and is of national application?

Lord E. PERCY: I have nothing to add to my published letter to the authority.

Mr. PALIN: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has recommended the local education authority for Essex and the teachers to consider a settlement of their salary dispute on the basis of more than one scale for the area; and, if so, whether there is any provision in Lord Burnham's arbitral award of the agreement between the two panels of the Standing Joint Committee on the Salaries of Teachers for such an arrangement?

Lord E. PERCY: The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the first, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given to-day to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham North (Mr. Charles Crook).

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PENSIONS (ADMINISTRATION).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the parallel existence of separate Departments for the administration of war pensions, old age pensions, and
widows', orphans' and old age contributory pensions; and whether he will consider the amalgamation of these separate services under one Department with a view to economy?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): These three pension systems are being administered under wholly different sets of Regulations and, apart from the actual process of payment, which is already being carried out in all three cases by the Post Office, I am inclined to doubt whether amalgamation in one Department would lead to any economy. The suggestion will, however, be borne in mind.

BOARD OF EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE ECONOMIES).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will state the nature and extent of the administrative economies which the Board are undertaking in their own administration, as stated in Circular 1,371?

Lord E. PERCY: The details of the proposals in question are still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject, beyond that contained in the Circular itself.

CUSTOMS.

Mr. HARRIS: 85.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any increase in the number of men employed in Customs work since March last; and whether any men have been lent for this work by other Departments; and, if so, how many?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on the 23rd July last and the 24th November. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

INSPECTORS OF TAXES' OFFICES (GRADING).

Mr. MONTAGUE: 97.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that numbers of writing assistants and shorthand-typists employed in the offices of the inspectors of taxes are engaged from time to time
on work appropriate to the tax-clerk grade without additional payment; and whether he will look into the position with a view to the proper grading of the work concerned and the payment of acting allowances to members of lower grades employed thereon?

Major HENNESSY: I understand that the nature of the duties appropriate to these classes and actually performed by individual members of them is the subject of an inquiry recently instituted by the Inland Revenue Departmental Whitley Council. A report will be made in due course to the council, but from the nature of the inquiry some time must elapse before the investigation is complete. In the meantime I must not, of course, be taken as assenting to the hon. Member's statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

CASUAL WARDS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 62.
asked the Minister of Health whether his inspectors exercise their powers of inspecting the casual wards of workhouses; and whether he can inform the House of the reports made by his inspectors of casual wards occupied by casual paupers at the time of inspection?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on the 26th November.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 63.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a report by Mr. Frank Gray upon the casual wards of certain workhouses; and whether he will inform the House as to the nature of the report and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question by the hon. Member for Devon-port on the 1st December last.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether officials from his Department have inspected the casual wards of the workhouses in the County of Oxford in recent times; when they did so; and whether he is satisfied with their condition and conduct?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The inspections have been made at various dates within the last 12 months. I am not in all cases satisfied with the condition and conduct of the wards, and, where necessary, the matter has been brought to the notice of the guardians with a view to securing improvement.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that is the first step and I will see what happens after that.

Mr. LANSBURY: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to state whether he considers the present dietary scale prescribed for men and women who become inmates of casual wards is sufficient for the maintenance of normal health and strength adequate to enable such persons to perform manual work?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that the dietary in question is sufficient for the purpose mentioned.

Mr. LANSBURY: 75.
asked the Minister of Health the number of casual and tramp wards in England and Wales; the number of inspectors, including women inspectors, whose duty it is to visit such institutions; and the number of visits expected to be paid to each ward during the course of the year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are 527 casual wards in use in England and Wales. The total number of general, assistant and women inspectors whose duties include the visitation of these wards is 36. There is a rule that every such ward shall be inspected at least once a year, but in many unions, especially during the last two years, inspections have been more frequent.

Mr. J. JONES: Are they inspected during the night?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Occasionally they are.

GUILDFORD INFIRMARY (NURSES' RESIGNATIONS).

Mr. HAYES: 69.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the conditions existing at the infirmary of the Guildford Union;
whether he is aware that 15 of the nursing staff resigned during August and September this year; that six are under compulsory resignation now; and that five have tendered their resignations in sympathy with their colleagues; and will he consider the holding of an inquiry by an inspector of the Ministry at an early date?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that the hon. Member has been misinformed. Certain changes in the staff of this infirmary are necessitated by its conversion into a training school for nurses. The total number of nurses who have left, or received notice on this account, is 12. One, in addition, has been dismissed for insubordination. I see no grounds at present for the holding of such inquiry as is suggested.

Mr. HAYES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two years ago an inquiry was held, and that the conditions then found to exist have not been improved upon; and that in the case of these resignations the nurses have no remedy unless the Minister orders some inquiry to be made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member must be entirely misinformed as to the reason for the resignations, which is that this institution is being converted into a training school for nurses.

Mr. HAYES: If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with information that the case is otherwise, will he do his best to have the matter reconsidered and an inquiry held?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall certainly be prepared to look into any representation that the hon. Member may make.

RELIEF LOANS (DEDUCTION FROM WAGES).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 79.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that workmen who have contracted loans with boards of guardians, as a form of relief, are having deductions made from their wages; and will he consider legislation with a view to bringing this practice to an end?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Section 69 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, expressly authorises this method of recovery of relief advanced on loan, and, though I
am not aware that extensive use is now made of the powers given by the Section, I am not at present aware that there are good grounds for the introduction of amending legislation.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it permissible that a deduction should be made from a man's wages at the source in respect of whatever sums he may previously have received as loans during a period of unemployment and distress?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Is not this practice a violation of the Truck Acts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; it is in accordance with Section 69 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Are not the Truck Acts later than that?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Act I have quoted has not been repealed.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the considerable number of complaints with regard to this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries of the boards of guardians and see to what extent this practice is being carried on at the present time?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure whether the hon. Member would desire that, in lieu of this practice, these people should be taken into the County Court. That is the alternative.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BRITISH BRICKS.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 66.
asked the Minister of Health whether British bricks are always specified for Government works and housing schemes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As details of local authorities' housing schemes are not submitted for my approval I have no knowledge whether British bricks are always specified. I may mention that the Government have urged local authorities to arrange that all contracts for or incidental to works carried out by them should in the absence of special circumstances, be placed in this country. As regards Government works I would suggest that the hon. Member should
address a question to the Ministers of the Departments which let contracts for works.

Captain GEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to withdraw the grant unless local authorities use British goods?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no power to do that under the Act.

Captain GEE: Will you amend the Act?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 76.
asked the Minister of Health if he can give an estimate of the production of bricks this year, in continuance of the estimate for 1924 given on 15th December, 1924?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Returns which have been obtained by the Building Materials Committee indicate that the annual output of common building bricks in England and Wales is now about 5,115 millions.

UNHEALTHY AREAS.

Mr. GROTRIAN: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that local authorities are being deterred from representing areas as unhealthy owing to the unfairness of paying nothing for buildings which in themselves are unexceptional, but which happens to be within an unhealthy area; and whether he will consider the repeal of Section 46 of the Housing Act, 1925, and the putting into force of the recommendations of the Report of the Unhealthy Areas Committee, 1921?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot accept the suggestion made in the first part of the question that no compensation is paid for buildings which in themselves are unexceptionable. Payment on the basis of site value is prescribed by the Act for buildings which are included in a scheme on account of their sanitary condition or because the premises are dangerous or prejudicial to health. I am closely watching the operation of this section, but I am not in a position to make any statement as to future legislation at the present time.

Mr. GROTRIAN: Was not the right hon. Gentleman himself the Chairman of this Committee and does he not think that
that is an additional reason for putting its admirable recommendations into force?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not for gotten that.

WEDNESBURY TOWN COUNCIL.

Mr. SHORT: 71.
asked the Minister of Health the number and area of suitable sites for the erection of municipal houses which exist within the Borough of Wednesbury; and, if not, will he invite the town council to make a survey with a view to such information being available?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The information asked for is not in my possession, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by my requesting the local authority to make a special survey of the kind suggested. The council have a certain amount of land in hand on which they propose to erect houses.

Mr. SHORT: 72.
asked the Minister of Health the nature of the difficulty which has delayed the erection of 30 houses by the Wednesbury Town Council on land situated in Holyhead Road; whether the difficulty has been surmounted; and, if not, what further action does he propose to take to ensure building operations being speedily commenced?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would draw the hon. Member's attention to my reply to a question asked by him on this subject on the 16th July. Since that date the Corporation have entered into a con tract for the erection of 18 houses on the Holyhead Road site, of which a number has already been commenced. I do not think there is any action which I can usefully take in the matter.

Mr. SHORT: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the first part of my question, which he certainly did not answer some weeks ago, as to what was the nature of the difficulty?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will find that in my previous answer.

STATISTICS.

Mr. SITCH: 73.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of new
houses erected by the Brierley Hill Urban District Council, Rowley Regis Urban District Council, Quarry Bank Urban District Council, Amblecote Urban District Council, and Kingswinford Rural District Council, and by private enterprise, respectively, since 31st March, 1925, to date?

NUMBER OF HOUSES COMPLETED.


—
With State Assistance between 31st March and 1st November, 1925.
By Private Enterprise without State Assistance during 6 months ended 30th September, 1925.


By Local Authorities.
By Private Enterprise.


Brierley Hill Urban District
…
57
—
2


Rowley Regis Urban District
…
8
8
—


Quarry Bank Urban District
…
—
—
—


Amblecote Urban District
…
—
6
1


Kingswinford Rural District
…
—
5
3

BUILDING (PRIVATE ENTERPRISE).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 77.
asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to state the total number of houses built in England and Wales without public assistance during the six months ended 30th September, 1925?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A few returns are still outstanding, but an estimate based on the returns already received shows that some 32,400 houses were built in England and Wales without State assistance during the half-year ended 30th September last.

ISLE OF WIGHT.

Mr. LAWSON: 78.
asked the Minister of Health whether the two complaints sent in this year with regard to housing accommodation on the part of the rural district council of the Isle of Wight were made by the Isle of Wight Committee of the Agricultural Workers' Union; whether copies of all correspondence between his Department and the local authority have been sent to the complainant Justice; and if, in view of the fact that the two previous statutory complaints sent in on behalf of that committee were found on investigation to be justifiable, he is prepared to order a further investigation in response to these fresh complaints?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am arranging for the statement asked for by the hon. Member to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The following table shows the number of houses completed in each district since 31st March, 1925:

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The complaints referred to were made by a Justice of the Peace, who stated that he was acting on behalf of the body mentioned. I do not think it necessary to send copies of all correspondence with the local authority to the complainant. I am pressing the council to expedite their scheme for the erection of houses, but I do not consider that there would be any advantage in a further investigation at the present time.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the medical officer's report for this area covering the year 1924 showed that there were then more houses out of repair than there were in 1923, and that generally he reports a, very deplorable state of things in this area; and will the right hon. Gentleman look through that report and press for further investigation in this area?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have looked through the report, and I am satisfied that very considerable improvement has taken place. So long as that improvement continues to take place, I do not think it is necessary to make further investigations.

Mr. LAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it a proof of improvement that there were considerably more houses out of repair in 1924 than in 1923?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the only thing in the report.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ENTERTAINMENT RATE).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 67.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give the name of each town of the country which possesses by legislation power to raise money for entertainment purposes above the statutory rate of one penny, and indicate the adopted rate in each case, as well as the amount of money which is raised by the entire rate?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the reply is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The answer is as follows:

Since 1900 the following places have obtained by legislation power to raise

Borough or District.
Purpose under which Expenditure on Entertainments is included in the Returns.
Expenditure falling on Rates for purposes specified in Column 2.
Amount in the £ of Rate levied to meet Expenditure.


1
2
3
4




£
d


Bath
Hot mineral baths and entertainments
5,898
3.5


Bexhill
Provision of music
660*
1.0


Folkestone
Bands
1,400
l.2†


Lytham St. Anne's
Municipal orchestra
911
1.0†


Morecambe (l925–26)
Entertainments, undertaking and advertisements.
2,800
6.8


Southend-on-Sen
Public bands
3,900
1.2


Tunbridge Wells
Public bands
1,530
1.1†


Erith
Bands
215*
0.3


* Column 3.—Calculated from amount in Column 4.


† Column 4.—Calculated from amount in Column 3.

INFANTS (MEDICAL WELFARE).

Colonel DAY: 80.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that no provision exists for the medical welfare of children over two years of age and under five years; and, in view of the danger of children between these ages being exposed to the risk of preventible diseases, will he cause arrangements to be made in order to close the present gap?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The arrangements made under the Maternity and Child Welfare Act do not exclude any category of children below school age, and my Department loses no opportunity of impressing upon the local authorities in charge of maternity and child welfare schemes the importance of maintaining a continuous supervision over children up to the age at which they attend school.

money for entertainment purposes in excess of a rate of one penny in the pound, viz.: the boroughs of Aberystwyth, Bath, Bexhill, Bridlington, Chesterfield, Dewsbury, Folkestone, Hartlepool, Hastings, Hornsey, Lytham St. Anne's, Morecambe, Oldham, Ramsgate, South-end-on-Sea, Tunbridge Wells and Worthing, and the urban districts of Clacton, Erith, Exmouth, Filey, The Matlocks and Whitby. The following statement shows, as regards certain of the places, the amount of expenditure on entertainments falling on rates in 1924–25, and the corresponding amount in the pound of the rate for the purpose. As regards the other places, the returns made to my Department do not distinguish the expenditure on entertainments.

MEDICAL REGISTER (DR. WILLIAM LLOYD).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 82.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the recent action of the General Medical Council in striking off the medical register one of its members for what is described as infamous conduct in a professional respect; whether he is aware that the General Medical Council is now composed wholly of medical members; and whether, seeing that the statute does not require that the General Medical Council should be composed exclusively of medical men, he will in nominating members of the council take steps to add members representing the public?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first and second questions is in the
affirmative, except that the practitioner to whom I understand my hon. and gallant Friend to refer was not a member of the General Medical Council. The answer to the third question is that members of the council other than those representing certain bodies specified in the Acts are nominated by His Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council. The Minister departmentally responsible is the Lord President of the Council.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no appeal whatever against the punishment inflicted by the Council, and will he, therefore, set up a Committee to investigate the procedure of the Council and its relation to modern usage and methods?

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not worth while taking steps to make the Trade Disputes Act apply to these people?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the answer to the first supplementary question is that I am not the Minister departmentally responsible.

Sir W. de FRECE: May we ask who is the Minister responsible?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already said in my answer that it is the Lord President of the Council.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Who represents the Lord President of the Council in this House?

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 83.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the action of the General Medical Council in removing the name of Dr. William Lloyd from the register of medical practitioners for having given treatment to certain patients; and whether he will consider the necessity of introducing legislation restricting the power of the General Medical Council to strike off the medical register the names of practitioners who have not been proved to be guilty of actual misconduct and giving him power to replace on such register the name of any person which, in his opinion, has been capriciously or unreasonably removed?

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: I have consulted my Noble Friend, the Lord President of the Council on this matter, as responsibility rests with him
and not with me. The name of Mr. William Lloyd was not, as I understand it, removed from the Medical Register by the General Medical Council for having given treatment to certain patients, but for having sought to obtain patients and promote his own professional advantage by unprofessional methods. I am. furnishing my hon. Friend with a copy of the charge on which Mr. Lloyd was summoned to appear before the Council. In answer to the second and third parts of the question, I am advised that the General Medical Council have statutory power to direct the erasure from the Medical Register of the name of a practitioner who has been convicted in England or Ireland of any felony or misdemeanour, or in Scotland of any crime or offence, or has after due inquiry by the Council been judged to have been guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect. I am further advised that there is no evidence that the Council have directed the erasure of the name of any practitioner without his having been thus convicted or thus judged after due inquiry to have been guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect, as defined by Lord Justice Lopes, Lord Justice Davey and Lord Esher. In regard to restoration, it has been the practice of the Council to replace names on the Medical Register when they are satisfied that such a course will not be prejudicial to the public interest. My Noble Friend has no reason to believe that the Council has acted capriciously or unreasonably, and as at present advised does not consider that the introduction of further legislation is necessary, there being already power under the relevant Acts for the Privy Council to issue its directions to make good any defaults in practice of the General Medical Council.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Are we to understand from that reply that this is a penalty inflicted on Dr. William Lloyd for having acted as a blackleg to his trade union?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Do we understand that questions which come within the purview of the Lord President of the Council are answered in this House by the Minister of Health, and, if not, to whom should we address questions affecting the public which can only be answered on behalf of the Lord President of the Council?

Mr. SPEAKER: Is that question addressed to me?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot answer it without notice. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put it to me later, when I have had time to look into it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will raise it on Monday.

SILK DUTIES.

Mr. HARRIS: 84.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for drawbacks or refunds on goods exported, made or partly made from real or artificial silk, have boon made up to the end of October; and what is the total amount of money repaid or paid over to exporters or traders by the Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Payments of drawbacks in respect of exports of silk and artificial silk goods amounted to £56,424 up to 31st October last. I regret that I am unable to state the number of claims for drawback received up to the same date, as this figure could only be ascertained by detailed inquiry at Customs and Excise offices throughout the country.

Mr. HARRIS: Am I right in assuming that there are a great number of small claims, and that the sums distributed are small sums paid to a great number of people, causing a lot of trouble and labour?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member seems to have more information on the subject than I have.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 90.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a Gobelin tapestry imported by Messrs. Trollope and Colls, of London, has been held up at the port of Newhaven for several weeks by the Customs authorities, who now demand a duty of £270 13s. 1d., which they assert is a third of the total value of the tapestry; and, as the article contains only a few pounds of silk, what he proposes to do in the matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that it is not the case that this article
has been held up by the Customs authorities for several weeks. It was not imported until the 11th November, and was not presented to the Customs until the 20th, when the officers were asked by the importer's agents what duty would be payable. The officers stated that the article was liable to duty at 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem. Since then no action has been taken by the importer to clear the goods. If the importer desire to contest the charge to duty, it is open to him to appeal to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a document demanding that duty here now?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of that particular point, and, consequently, am not able to appreciate its significance, but I certainly propose to give my personal attention to the cases which have been raised in regard to works of art.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Does the right hon. Gentleman defend the imposition of a duty amounting to £270 odd on a few pounds of old French silk?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will, at the proper time, enter into a discussion of the actual working of this Act, but I say without any hesitation that in the months that have passed since the Act came into operation a number of subsidiary cases, which were not contemplated at the time the duty was put into force and could not have been foreseen, have arisen, and will, in my opinion, require comprehensive treatment before the next Finance Bill is passed.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Does this mean that the Government are willing to put a tax on, say, masterpieces of painting, because they contain a few ounces of silk?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The question of luxury taxation—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now go into this large question.

FIGHTING SERVICES (GREAT POWERS' EXPENDITURE).

Mr. SHORT: 87.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the total expenditure on military, naval, and Air Force services for 1919 to 1924,
inclusive, by Great Britain, Germany, France, United States of America, and Japan, respectively?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I feel some doubt whether the information at my disposal will enable me to supply comparable figures, but I am having the matter looked into, and will communicate with the hon. Member in a few days.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Captain CAZALET: 94.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the difference would be in the amount which the British Government is due to pay to the United States of America this year if the British debt had been funded on the same terms as the American-Italian debt?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the British debt to the United States of America had been funded on the same terms as the Italian debt to the United States Government, the amount payable by His Majesty's Government to the United States Government during the present year would be approximately $11 millions instead of $160 millions.

CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS (RESIDENCE ABROAD).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 95.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the amount of money paid in pension to Civil Service pensioners resident in foreign countries, and the number of such pensioners?

Major HENNESSY (Lord of the Treasury): The number of such pensioners is 210, and the annual amount paid to them in pensions is £45,220.

SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

Mr. W. BAKER: 96.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the exact total return which will be secured by a holder of 100 original war savings certificates who agrees to hold them for the extended period; how this compares with the return which would be secured by the same person selling and
reinvesting in the new issue; and whether he will explain the reason for the difference?

Major HENNESSY: As the reply is a long one, and contains a number of detailed figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

1. Each certificate increases uniformly in value by 1d. a month, which equals on 100 certificates £5 in the first year, £10 in the first two years, £15 in the first three years, and so on.

The length of the extended period depends on the date of the certificate: for a certificate originally bought on 31st March, 1921, the maximum is one year; for a certificate originally bought on 31st March, 1920, it is two years, and so on. In the extreme case, rare in practice, of a certificate bought on or before 31st March, 1916, the maximum is six years, but a holder may desire and is entitled to cash his certificate at any time within that period.

2. The current (third) issue of certificates increases in value by 3d. in the first year, and thereafter by 3d. every four months. If 100 certificates of the first series, which have been held for 10 years, are sold and the proceeds reinvested in the current issue, the investment increases in value in the first year by £2 0s. 6d. only; in the first two years, by £8 2s.; three, £14 3s. 6d.; four, £20 5s.; five, £26 6s. 6d.; six, £32 8s. It is evident that this would be an unsuitable scale for the extension proposals, the small increase in the first year acting as a serious deterrent. Moreover, conversion would not meet the case of holders of more than 307 certificates, since that number of ten-year certificates at 26s. gives the purchase price (£400) of 500 certificates of the current series. Under the plan actually adopted the holder can keep the full value of his certificates (£650) invested free of Income Tax.

SHIPS' WIRELESS OPERATORS (WAGES DISPUTES).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Board of Trade officials at Manchester and
Newcastle have approached the principal of the wireless training school at each of these places suggesting that students holding restricted wireless certificates should communicate with the local Board of Trade office as positions are available; whether he will state what positions are available; and whether it is a function of the Board of Trade to supply labour, efficient or otherwise, to shipowners or wireless companies during a trade dispute?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Board of Trade have no information as to the action stated to have been taken at Manchester and Newcastle. Their invariable rule is to maintain strict impartiality in trade disputes, and this is well understood by the local officers. I have telegraphed to the officers concerned for a report, and will inform the hon. Member as soon as I know what the facts are.

Mr. KENNEDY: Did the right hon. Gentleman have timely notice of the question?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I first saw this question at ten minutes to two when the Cabinet adjourned.

Mr. KENNEDY: May I ask if, in view of the regulation which restricts the engagement of unqualified wireless operators on vessels of 1,600 tons or over, the waiving of the regulation now applies to those operators engaged on vessels of that sort?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. KENNEDY: I will repeat it to-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister state what business he proposes to take next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: In view of the present position of business and the desire of the Opposition that the Government should find time to discuss certain subjects in which they are interested, I am afraid I shall not be able to give the business for next week until to-morrow except to say that on Monday we shall proceed with the Safeguarding of Industries Resolutions.

Mr. MacDONALD: I am not sure that I quite understood what the right hon. Gentleman said. Does he propose on Monday to proceed with these Resolutions?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure until after to-night what stage we shall be taking.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: With regard to the Ways and Means Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that he undertook to put the Resolution on the Paper for the convenience of Members. I observe that the Resolution on the Paper was put down in accordance with his promise the day before yesterday and appeared yesterday. It was then withdrawn and a new Resolution was put on the Paper this morning. May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this is the last and final form in which they are to appear?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Perhaps I may answer that?

Captain BENN: No. On a point of Order. A Ways and Means Resolution, I submit, is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is always supposed that the Government is one and indivisible.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I really am not furnished with the details of this particular proposal and, unhappily, the Financial Secretary, who was dealing with this branch, is laid up by illness. Therefore I am not able to answer this question myself, but I will ask the House to accept the answer on my behalf from the President of the Board of Trade, who is fully acquainted with the details and with whose views on the matter I am in entire accord.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite right in one sense. That is to say, the Resolution which is now on the Paper covers exactly the same articles as were included in the Resolution that was on the Paper yesterday, but there is a variation proposed in the rate of duty. I think it would be convenient if I were to deal with the proposals when we come to the Paper Resolution, and not to deal with them by question and answer at present.

Captain BENN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one further question, in view of the happy state of unity which appears to exist among members of the Government? May I ask whether, in accordance with the immemorial practice of this House, he intends to adorn our Debates this evening?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know that it has been the immemorial practice of the Opposition to prescribe in advance what members of the Government should deal with any particular matter.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Will the Prime Minister say whether, when making his programme of time, he has made any provision for discussion of the Motion placed on the Paper by the right hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. Fisher) on the subject of the recently issued Education Circular?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the answer to that question is comprised in the answer I have given to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Am I to understand that the Resolution which is down in the name of my right hon. Friend will be discussed according to arrangements made with the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that is implied in what I said. I cannot state until to-morrow what will be the business for next week.

Motion made and Question put.
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 241: Noes, 129.

Division No. 453.]
 AYES.
[4.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Greene, W. p, Crawford


Albery, Irving James
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gretton, Colonel John


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cooper, A. Duff
Grotrian, H. Brent


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S,
Cope, Major William
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Applin, Colonel R V. K.
Couper, J. B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hammersley, S. S.


Balniel, Lord
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Crookshank, Col. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Haslam, Henry C.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth. Drake)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Berry, Sir George
Drewe, C.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Bethell, A.
Duckworth, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Betterton, Henry B.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Henn, sir Sydney H.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Blundell, F. N.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hilton. Cecil


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Elveden, Viscount
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brass, captain W.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hopkins, J. W, W.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Briscoe, Richard George
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fielden, E. B.
Huntingfield, Lord


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Finburgh, S.
Hurd, Percy A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Fleming, D. P.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Forrest, W.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Cautley, Sir Henry S
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Jacob, A. E.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Jephcott, A. R.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ganzoni. Sir John
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gates, Percy
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Chapman, Sir S.
Gee, Captain R.
Lamb, J. Q.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Goff, Sir Park
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Clarry, Reginald George
Gower, Sir Robert
Locker-Lampson. G. (Wood Green)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grace, John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grant, J. A.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Pielou, D. P.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Lumley, L. R.
Pilcher, G.
Templeton, W. P.


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Macintyre, Ian
Preston, William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


McLean, Major A.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir w. Mitchell


Macquisten, F. A.
Radford, E. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Raine, W.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Malone, Major P. B.
Ramsden, E.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Margesson, Captain D.
Remnant, Sir James
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Rye. F. G.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Salmon, Major I.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watts, Dr. T.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wells, S. R.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. c.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Savery, S. S.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Murchison, C. K.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nelson, sir Frank
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)
Wolmer, Viscount


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Skelton, A. N.
Womersley, W. J.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Nuttall, Ellis
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Oakley, T.
Smithers, Waldron
Woodcock. Colonel H. C.


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sprot, Sir Alexander



Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pease, William Edwin
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Commander B. Eyres Monsell and


Pennefather, Sir John
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Colonel Gibbs.


Penny, Frederick George
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife. West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Sexton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Short. Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, Walter
Hayes, John Henry
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smillie, Robert


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W,
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Stamford, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, J. E.


Bromley, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Taylor, R. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clowes, S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawson, John James
Townend, A. E.


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Varley, Frank B.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Montague, Frederick
Weir, L. M.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morris, R. H.
Westwood, J.


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wiggins, William Martin


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Warne.


Question put, and agreed to.

WITHDRAWAL OF STRANGERS.

OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. I wish to raise a question and to obtain your general ruling, Mr. Speaker, relating to certain things which are done in this House, or may be done in the future, when a specific Motion is moved. Standing Orders 88 and 90, which I will not read, refer to the exclusion of strangers from Debates in this House. I wish to know from you, whether the terra "strangers" is to include officials of the House whose salaries come out of Votes of this House, who are sitting in this Chamber all the time that hon. Members are in this Chamber, whether the exclusion affects those officials, whether only a certain section of officials are affected, or all of them. I should like your ruling upon that point because, as the matter stands, I think it is in rather a vague position. When strangers are asked to leave this House, Peers who may be present in the Gallery are permitted to remain, and even ladies who are in the Ladies' Gallery need not withdraw unless they like, according to precedent in this House.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member's question has reference to the Official Reporter and his staff, and as to whether or not they stand in any different category from the representatives of the Press in the Gallery. I have looked into that matter, and can find no reason, as things at present stand, for making any differentiation. It seems to be quite clear that, if the House decide, or the Committee decide, that, strangers must withdraw, that must include the whole of the reporting staffs.

Mr. MACLEAN: If the whole of the reporting staffs, including officials of this House, must retire, and if the term "strangers" includes all these reporters, then does not the term "strangers" include also the messengers who so about this House, to whom attention was drawn last night when they were moving about the House, and whom the Chairman stated were excluded from the term "strangers?" I have asked for your ruling on the point whether only one section of the officials of this House are to be classed in the term "strangers," and excluded, while another section is not to be excluded, and, if so, which section is to be included within the term
"strangers" when strangers are again spied, and which section is not to be included in the term "strangers?" We can then have the matter cleared up.

Mr. SPEAKER: I note that when Standing Order 90, which is the one relevant, was recently amended, making provision for members of the other House to be here, the other points were not dealt with and, therefore, the Chair is bound to go by the previous practice of the House. That, I think, must stand until the House itself decide on some change. It may be that the Standing Order should be reconsidered, but I do not express an opinion. The Standing Order is quite clear in itself, and its implications are bound up with the practice of the House, which goes back over a long period.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Have you considered this aspect of the matter, that this House gave instructions that its proceedings shall be reported? In carrying out that instruction it employs servants. Are these servants, here by the instruction of the House, to be regarded as servants who are here because the House has endowed them with certain privileges?

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter has been present to my mind. If the House had so intended when the duties of "Hansard" were taken over by the House, and performed by the Official Reporter and his staff, then a change ought to have been made in the Rules. That is why I suggest that there may be a case for a reconsideration of the present Standing Order.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I draw your attention to this point—that other officials were allowed to remain in the House, while certain officials were asked to withdraw? Standing Order 90 makes no reference to officials in general, to all officials, or to some officials, who may be asked either to withdraw or to remain when strangers are spied. All that the Standing Order refers to are "strangers," who must leave. What I wish to have made clear is whether all officials of this House are to be looked upon as strangers and, if so, why they should not all have to withdraw? If they are not all strangers, which section if officials of this House is to be looked upon as "strangers" and have to withdraw?

Mr. SPEAKER: Clearly, the intention of the House when the Standing Order was passed, and when it was amended was, that on such a Motion, the proceedings of the House should not be reported, and the change from "Hansard" to the Official Reporter and his staff has not affected that position, in the absence of any expressed instruction of the House. There the matter stands.

Captain BENN: In the event of the Official Reporters withdrawing, in accordance with the Motion of the House, "That strangers do withdraw," what provision is made for a record of the formal proceedings of the House, the rulings from the Chair, and so forth? If you say that the Votes and Proceedings thereupon become the only official record of the proceedings of the House, may I ask whether there is any opportunity available for any hon. Member who wishes to suggest that they are not full, or that they are inaccurate, to raise the point?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Votes and Proceedings remain the only record of what has taken place. Of course, if any hon. Member represents to me that the Votes and Proceedings are inaccurate, I will certainly look into the matter.

Captain BENN: I need hardly say that I am not impugning the accuracy of the Votes and Proceedings, but I am asking you what provision there is for taking an official record of the rulings of the Chair, which in secret Session assume an importance even greater than in public Session.

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no record. That shows that the House ought to be a little careful about spying strangers.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I put this further point to you? Are we to take it that, if any Messengers are to be seen in the Chamber, or if only the Official Reporters, during an all-night Sitting or at any other time, are seen in the Press Gallery reporting the Proceedings, any hon. Member can draw attention to the fact that there are strangers in the House, and have this Motion put?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that is so. It is the ancient practice of the House. There were one or two Select Committees which in past years considered the question, and they declined to recommend any change in the practice.

Mr. MACLEAN: I want to give notice that I shall raise this matter next week when the printed record of the Proceedings until the Press had to withdraw will be in the hands of Members.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Lieut.-Colonel the Right Hon. WALTER EDWARD GUINNESS, D.S.O., for the County of West Suffolk (Bury St. Edmunds Division).

SUSPENSION OF A MEMBER.

The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move,
That the period of suspension from the service of this House of Mr. William Murdoch Adamson do terminate this day.
The House is well aware that, owing to a failure in the drafting of a Standing Order, whenever a Member has been suspended, he can be restored only by the vote of the House on the Motion of the Leader of the House, and the somewhat difficult and invidious duty is left to the Leader of the House, who must take into account all the circumstances of each individual case, and at the same time interpret, as he is best able, the feeling of the House, because this is essentially a matter for the whole of the House. I feel that I ought to begin by apologising to the House that I was not present when this unfortunate episode occurred, but I happened to be very much occupied in Conferences over Irish affairs and with regard to the reception of our foreign guests, who have now left the country. I hope to do better in future.
I have been at pains to acquaint myself with the fact of what occurred, and I am quite clear in my own mind, and from my knowledge of the hon. Member himself, that this was not a case of premeditated infringement of the manners and customs of the House. I am quite convinced that it arose from one of those temporary losses of control which occur to most people and which most of us regret heartily as soon as the occasion has passed, I fancy, and I think his demeanour under his punishment was such, that we may feel that he at once felt the regret which he has very properly expressed in a letter. Therefore, it is my duty to-day—I may say my
pleasure—to move this Motion, and I am quite sure that it will commend itself to the House. Before I sit down, I should like to say, although this has nothing to-do with the hon. Member, that the circumstances have carried in their train one question on which the Minister of Pensions would desire to make a personal statement, and I am sure that the House would be willing to hear him.

Major TRYON: By leave, I would respectfully thank the House for the opportunity of making a personal explanation of the position. The case to which the hon. Member for Cannock endeavoured to draw attention on 1st December was that of a Mr. Birch, who had been in receipt of a pension of 12s. a week for himself and 3s. for his wife for eye troubles. As the result of an independent report from Mr. Birch's own doctor, an examination was held and he was found to be suffering from a serious disorder, which affected his mental condition, and this necessitated his certification as insane. To establish the connection between this fresh development and Mr. Birch's war service, naturally required careful investigation by the Ministry's medical advisers. A favourable decision, accepting the disability as aggravated by war service, was, however, arrived at on 19th November. Authority for payment of treatment allowance to Mrs. Birch was given on 24th November, and payment was actually received by her on 27th November at the full rate of 38s. 6d. per week. The above facts show that the statement in a Labour newspaper this morning, to the effect that the action of the Ministry was a sequel to the hon. Member's question on 1st December, is entirely untrue. On the contrary, the method of raising the question had actually the effect of preventing the Minister giving the facts to the House, as he could, and would have done, if he had been questioned in the usual way. I would add, in justice to the hon. Member that at the time he had not been informed by the Ministry that that was he case.

Ordered, "That the period of suspension from the service of this House of Mr. William Murdoch Adamson do terminate this day."

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [No. 268.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1890, relating to Campbeltown Harbour and Gas." [Campbeltown Harbour and Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

CAMPBELTOWN HARBOUR AND GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BTLL [Lords].

Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 269.]

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, in respect of tli5-Workmen's Compensation Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 184.]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 2nd December.]

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I beg to move:

Orders of the Day — "GLOVES."

"That during a period of five years from the passing of an Act for giving effect to this Resolution there shall be charged on the importation of the following articles into Great Britain or Northern Ireland a duty of customs of an amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value of the article, that is to say:

Gloves made in whole or in part of leather or of fur, and leather or fur cut out ready for sewing into gloves, but not including gloves known as astrakhan gloves or gloves in which leather is used only as trimming or binding;

Gloves cut out of woven or knitted material consisting in whole or in part of cotton and sewn up and known as fabric gloves, and material for such gloves cut out ready for sewing."

This Resolution relates to gloves, which have also been the subject of exhaustive examination by a Committee of Inquiry under the White Paper procedure. In one case, that of leather gloves, a great deal of the evidence was put forward by the Joint Industrial Council. The glove industry, as the Committee find and as common sense would dictate, really is one industry. The leather glove industry is one of the oldest in the country. The fabric glove industry is a new industry, a War and post-War industry. But, new as that industry is, it is interesting to see from the Report of the Committee that, as far as capacity goes, it has been making considerable progress. The Committee say in paragraph 8 of the Report:
We are satisfied, however, that British manufacturers have considerably improved their products during the past few years, and we are of opinion that the types of fabric gloves now produced in this country are fairly comparable in fit and finish with those at present manufactured abroad.

That is an important finding, because it will be remembered that when this industry was discussed here some years ago there was a great deal of criticism of the
industry on the ground that it was doubtful whether it had the capacity to turn out a suitable article, reasonably comparable with that of foreign competitors. To-day I do not believe that anyone has any doubt that the industry is fully capable of producing an article which compares favourably with that of any other country.

Mr. P. HARRIS: In price?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope that the hon. Member will let me develop my argument. I am speaking about quality, but I will come to price in a minute, and the hon. Member who, I am sure, has read the Report, will see that the whole Report shows that, in price, the British manufacturer cannot compete. The Committee will also remember that the applicants put forward a claim for a safeguarding duty, not only in respect of fabric gloves, but in respect of glove fabric also. The latter the Committee rejected on its merits, and no proposal relating to it figures in the Resolution. The Committee say in paragraph 12:
We have considered the question of glove fabric, and are of opinion that the Applicants have not established a claim for a duty. We are satisfied that British manufacturers can produce glove fabric comparable with that manufactured in Germany.
They go on to say:
An additional reason for refusing the claim for a duty on glove fabric is that in the event of a duty being imposed on fabric gloves, employment is likely to be more substantially increased by permitting imports of fabrics to British glove manufacturers.
I should say, in fairness, that one member of the Committee dissented from that finding, and the other two members were in favour of it. The Government did not feel justified in proposing a duty in the case of glove fabric.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: This is the first case where we have had a minority finding. Will the right hon. Gentleman say, as he attaches so much importance to the findings of the Committee, exactly what weight is to be attached to the finding of the minority member? Does that minority finding carry any weight with him at all, or no weight?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It depends entirely on circumstances. Generally the
Report of a majority will carry more weight than a Report of a minority. As a vote of a majority carries more weight than a vote of a minority, one would certainly be called upon to justify by a full explanation the adoption of the proposals of a minority rather than the proposals of a majority. However, that does not arise here, because the Government accepted the proposal of the majority in this case. I am entitled to make this observation with regard to the findings. The fact that the Committee refused to recommend a duty on glove fabric is strong evidence of the thoroughness of the inquiry. One comes next to the question whether the industry is one of substantial importance. The leather glove industry employed over 10,000 people, and the fabric glove industry, while it used to employ a good many thousands, to-day employs only 1,800. The glove industry, taken as a whole, undoubtedly is an industry of substantial importance, and the Committee have so reported.
Then we come to the question of com-petition. Both in regard to leather and fabric gloves the Committee report that the rate of imports is abnormal, and I think that on the facts which are set out in the Report there is no doubt that they were correct in that conclusion. The trade returns of imports since the time when the Committee reported show the tendency to abnormality, and they have been increasing and increasing considerably. The Committee draw attention, in paragraph 15 of the Report, to the tremendous increase of imports from Italy, and. to a much less degree, from France and Czechoslovakia. The Report was made some months ago. When one follows up the imports during more recent months, one finds that the imports of leather gloves have been at an even more excessive rate.
For instance, if you compare June, 1925, with June, 1924, the figures are 115,000 dozen pairs, as against 71,000; in July, 99,000, as against 80,000; in August, 121,000, as against 79,000; and in September, 100,000, as against 96,000. If you take the imports up to date, in the first three-quarters of the year 1925, the total imports of leather gloves were 887,000 dozen, and if you assume from the increase of imports that there will be a similar rate for the remaining three
months, you get a rate of 1,183,000 dozen gloves. Considering that, as the Committee found, the consumption of gloves has gone down since before the War, that shows that there is a steadily increasing and abnormal importation into this country. The Committee point out another aspect of their case which is very relevant. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) said yesterday: "You have to look at the general trend in these matters." The Committee point out, in paragraph 18, that though the general consumption of gloves in this country has risen by 100 per cent. since 1920, the British manufacturer has only maintained his 1920 production. That is a very remarkable fact. The imports are still rising.

Mr. SEXTON: If the imports are increasing, how can the right hon. Gentleman pretend to safeguard industry?

Sir P. CUIMLIFFE-LISTER: Because I propose to put on a countervailing duty in order that the British industry may be able to compete on equal terms. The imports are progressively increasing, and if we were getting our fair share of the total trade in this country, we should be doing a great deal more than we were doing in 1920. If the House assents to this duty, I have no doubt that we shall in future years do a much larger proportion of the trade. The Committee considered quite properly whether the gloves which are coming in are, generally speaking, gloves which this country can manufacture, and they found that that is, generally speaking, true. In paragraph 19 the Committee report:
The evidence submitted to us indicated that there are many types of gloves imported which are not at present produced in this country, but we are satisfied that many of these were produced here before the War, and could be made to-day if the industry were safeguarded from unfair competition.
Then the Committee reaffirmed that the importation is in abnormal quantities. They go on to consider fabric gloves and they say that this must be treated as a post-War industry—a very reasonable statement. I may remind the Committee in this connection of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) last night that we had to look not at 1913, but at the years after the War. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to that in all cases, but in the case of an industry
which has developed during the War or which has been established during the War—a new industry—it is certain that what you have to look at is the general trend of the post-War years. The position was this: that in 1920 this industry which had built itself up during the War, was producing 84 per cent. of the United Kingdom consumption and the imports were 16 per cent. To-day the position is more than reversed, because in 1924 11.8 per cent. of the United Kingdom consumption was British manufacture, whereas 88.2 per cent. was foreign manufacture. The rapid rate of the increase in imports in this industry is shown in the tables in the Report up to the date at which the Committee was holding its investigation, but in the first period of this year no less than 1,730,000 dozens of these gloves were imported into this country as against 954,000 in 1924, which is a very excessive importation.
Then we come to the question of prices. The committee find as a fact that the prices at which these gloves are being sold is in fact below the cost at which the British manufacturer can make them, and they find that these prices apply to gloves which are either directly competitive or are alternatives. They find, in paragraph 25, that unemployment in the industry is serious, is great, and is growing and they set out figures which show that to be the case.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I thought that was denied.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it was not denied even by the opponents of the duty.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Do not the Government deny that there is an increase in unemployment?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The fact that trade is improving in other industries surely makes out all the stronger case for this industry. If, in spite of a rise in the trade barometer, this industry is still in a state of depression that is surely an additional reason for safeguarding it. With regard to the leather glove section, the Joint Industrial Council state that, whereas in 1913 there were 9,321 workers on full time, in 1924 that number had fallen to 7,032 who were only working 40 hours a week. That is borne out by the figures showing the number
of apprentices in proportion to the number of cutters in the trade now, as compared with the period before the War. The figures in regard to fabric gloves are far worse. Whereas in the boom period of this industry about 11,000 people were employed, it has fallen to under 2,000 and the committee find that wages are lower in Italy, Germany, Belgium and France. They find in addition that longer hours are worked in those countries and that there is a much greater proportion of outworkers in the leather glove industry, which means that overhead charges are lower in Italy because the factories are proportionately smaller.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is that because Mussolini destroyed the trade unions?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that it has been the custom and the habit in Italy under the Socialist-Radical and Mussolini regimes. Whatever may be the cause, it is a fact which has a distinct relation to competition in this country. The Committee find that both leather and fabric glove industries are efficient and that a duty imposed upon cither leather or fabric gloves could not and would not injure any other industry. Obviously there is not an industry which uses gloves in its process of manufacture. They find on the other hand that the greater the production of gloves the more help is given to several subsidiary industries, such as box-making and button-making. It will be remembered that this duty was under consideration on a previous occasion, and the question was raised as to whether a duty on fabric gloves would not possibly inflict an injury on the Lancashire yarn trade. It was a remarkable claim, because it seems very obvious that the Germans bought yarn in Lancashire, not because of any peculiar wish to confer a favour upon Lancashire, but because it was the best yarn. Therefore it paid the Germans to buy it, and they were not likely to buy inferior yarn merely because their gloved were taxed. It was also pointed out that, in so far as gloves were going to be made in this country instead of in Germany, the yarn would be consumed here, and in so far as they were not made here the yarn would still be sold in Germany.
The fear that the yarn trade would be affected has not been borne out by experience, because those who follow the
general trend of exports in the cotton trade will have observed—and it is not a very satisfactory thing to observe—that whereas exports of piece goods are not at all on the scale on which they were before the War, it is the export of yarn of the finest kind, such as fabric glove yarn, which is the most successful branch of the Lancashire trade. I remind hon. Members of that fact because, although we went into it before and although the House of Commons then came to the conclusion that the fear expressed was groundless, experience has borne out the judgment which the House of Commons pronounced. The Committee considered whether a specific duty or an ad valorem duty should be imposed, and they came to the conclusion that an ad valorem duty was at once the fairest and most workable, and I am bound to say that all Customs experience confirms that view on both grounds. They say in the Report:
The Applicants both for leather and fabric gloves asked for a specific duty, but on carefully examining their proposals we have arrived at the conclusion that on account of the wide range of prices it would be extremely difficult to arrive at an equitable rate. … After an examination of the prices of many kinds of British and foreign leather and fabric gloves we consider that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. would be reasonably sufficient to countervail the unfair competition. We therefore recommend that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem should be imposed for at least five years.
I think that is a reasonable finding and after considerable consultation, I am advised that not only would a specific duty put a small tax on the most highly-priced article and a relatively large tax on the lower-priced article, but that if you were to try to make it proportionate you would have such a complicated duty that it would be almost impossible to administer it and in administration what you want is simplicity and speed. Therefore the Resolution proposes that the duty should be the ad valorem duty recommended by the Committee, and that it should apply to leather and fur gloves —fur gloves were treated throughout the inquiry as leather and they are always made of leather and fur—with the exception that it is not intended to tax-woollen gloves which only have leather bindings and trimmings or astrakhan gloves—gloves made from an imitation of astrakhan wool fabric.

Captain BENN: Will motor-drivers' gloves be taxed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-L1STER: If they are made of leather or of fur and leather, yes.

Captain BENN: Will housemaids' gloves be taxed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: it is also proposed to charge the duty on fabric gloves as recommended. The condition of this industry is well known to many hon. Members. In the case of leather gloves it is, as I say, an old established industry; in the case of fabric gloves the industry has built itself up recently and has been progressing and making itself more efficient. I submit that a clear case has been made out in respect of both classes of gloves and that the Committee should pass the Resolution.

The CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed further it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say something as to these Amendments and as to the course I suggest. It will be remembered that yesterday, on an Amendment as to duration, I allowed a general discussion, not only on the particular Resolution then before the Committee, but on all the Resolutions. Of course, that ruling will not apply on the present occasion, and if I call the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and others, to leave out "during a period of five years" and insert "for a period of twelve months," the discussion would have to be limited to the question of duration. Lower down on the Paper the Committee will note that there are two Amendments, one to leave out lines 5 to 7 and the other to leave out lines 8 to 10. These lines refer to the different classes of gloves, and I suggest that on the first of these Amendments a general discussion should be taken and that, as has often been done before, there should be separate Divisions on the two Questions.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I think we might agree with the suggestion which you, Sir, have made, on condition that the discussion of these other Amendments is not altogether prohibited, but that you will allow at least some discussion on them.
The Chairman said just now there should be two separate Divisions. I assume he did not mean to exclude discussion?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I also point out the disadvantage the Committee will be under if the suggestion you, Sir, have made, be adopted? The President of the Board of Trade has quite rightly taken the opportunity to make a general statement on the whole question of the new duty to be imposed on leather and fabric gloves. If there is to be no general reply until we come to the last two Amendments on the Paper, it may mean that the general reply cannot be given, perhaps, until early to-morrow morning, and there will be no record outside this House of the discussion that has taken place, and it does put those who are criticising the duty under a very grave disadvantage. May I also, with due respect, suggest to you that when you say we might have a general discussion on the last two Amendments, the general discussion should be permissible on these without any special privilege granted to us from the Chair. It is necessary that we should, as far as possible, deal with the statement of the President of the Board of Trade at the earliest possible moment. For that reason I hope you will not rule too harshly the limits under which the discussion may take place on the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).

The CHAIRMAN: There are two principles I have to bear in mind. The first is that there cannot be the same discussion on two different Amendments, and the other is that I can only allow a general discussion on a specific Amendment which does not cover the whole field, by general consent. I should not mind if there were a general discussion on the first Amendment, but if that be so, I should have to confine the discussion on the two last Amendments to the differences between the two different kinds of gloves, and the incidence of the duties on them in particular. But if it be the general wish and for the convenience of the Committee that we should take the general discussion on the first Amendment, I am quite ready to meet the general convenience.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope the Committee will adopt the view you have just
explained. In that case, may I take the opportunity of moving the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend?

Mr. LANSBURY: Before that is done, may I ask when there will be an opportunity of discussing the proposals as a whole? Supposing there were no Amendments moved, and the right hon. Gentleman moved this Resolution, I take it we would be able to discuss it as it stands I want to ask whether Members will have the opportunity of discussing the proposals without being obliged to move an Amendment?

Captain SHAW: Will that not mean a general discussion on the Resolution now, and then a general discussion on the first half and a general discussion on the second half? Could not both be discussed at the same time?

The CHAIRMAN: That was my suggestion, but I cannot waive the rule of Order except by general consent. if there were no Amendments, we could forthwith have a discussion on the Resolution, but, as I pointed out yesterday, that is a very unsatisfactory procedure where there are any Amendments, because at any moment an Amendment may be moved, and that would limit the discussion. I want to suggest some form to meet the general convenience.

Mr. SNOWDEN: It seems to me a rather immaterial point on what Amendment a general discussion takes place, but I quite see the point raised by the right hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Runciman) that it would be better if we could have the general discussion first, because if Amendments are moved on which a general discussion is not permitted, I am afraid the speakers will find a good deal of difficulty in keeping strictly in order. I have, therefore, no objection to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Swansea.

The CHAIRMAN: I will take it that that suits the convenience of the Committee.

Mr. LANSBURY: Do I take it that on the first Amendment we could discuss the proposal as a whole?

The CHAIRMAN: That would be so.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out the words "during a
period of live years," and to insert instead thereof the words "for a period of twelve months."
In moving this Amendment on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I may, perhaps, be allowed to make some general observations on this duty. The first observation I desire to make is that we must note once more the absence of any representative of the Treasury.

Sir P. CUNL1FFE- LISTER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an explanation at Question time this afternoon that he was unable to be present owing to important negotiations which he has in hand. The Financial Secretary is ill in bed.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman had waited for a moment, I should certainly have expressed sympathy with the Financial Secretary. We all know what he has been through in recent times, and nobody in this House has a larger need of our sympathy. But I cannot help pointing out that there is no representative of the Treasury, and that, again, is a departure from the precedent of three generations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is quite true, has other important work elsewhere, but none of his work anywhere transcends the importance of his work in the House of Commons, and if it be inconvenient that his work elsewhere should lie on one side, then the Order Paper of the House should have been amended, and the subject put off until a day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was free. I am afraid I do not see any attempt on the part of the Government to make arrangements to facilitate his presence here, for a very obvious reason. It is well known the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not sympathise with Protection, and, what is more, he has expressed himself so strongly in recent years on the subject, that I must remind the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues of exactly what was said about his proposals, even so recently as the year 1923. In dealing with some of the proposals then before them, he pointed out how foolish he thought the Protectionist doctrines. He talked about the tendencies, which are obviously present in the minds of the President of the Board of Trade and other Protectionists,
of the constantly flowing stream of imports into this country, and he used, amongst other things, this rather characteristic sentence. He said:
The Protectionists see the river flowing to the ocean. They wonder anxiously how long will it be before the earth is all drained up.
And then he went on to say to his hearers in Leicester—this was in 1923—
His advice to his hearers is to pause before they adopt any of these half-baked, ill-thought-out adventurous schemes. The idea that unemployment is caused by foreign imports is absurd.
It is with that evidently ringing in his ears still, but I have no doubt with a warm place in his heart, he finds it inconvenient to be here to support the proposals put forward by the President of the Board of Trade. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to get up at Question time and say he accepts everything the President says. If he does accept everything the President says, then I congratulate the President on having made a very distinguished convert. But there are a great many Members on his own side of the House who are not quite sure of his conversion, who are not quite sure of their man, and one reason why the President of the Board of Trade has to deal with this matter, and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose duty it obviously is, is that they know the President is a sincere Protectionist, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been everything by turn except a Protectionist.
This matter cannot be dealt with merely on the merits of whether leather gloves are more worn or less worn, or whether fabric gloves are imported in larger or less quantities, or whether the Bolton spinners are to find their consumers here or in Chemnitz. The question is whether or not we are to have our Revenue used mainly for trade purposes, and not for Revenue purposes. The object of this duty is not to add to the Revenue. If it were, this would have been the job of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is because the right hon. Gentleman hopes there will be no revenue from it, and that it will keep foreign goods out of the country, that he is advocating this duty to-day. But it is none the less a Revenue Measure, and one which is likely to bring far less to the Exchequer than it will extract from the consumers of these arti-
cles. As my hon. Friend pointed out on the Resolution relating to cutlery yesterday, the amount coming into the Treasury will be a trivial sum compared with the rise in price that these duties will bring about. The tendency, therefore, of this financial arrangement is to place a burden on the subject here out of all proportion to the revenue gained to the Exchequer. The matter of the volume of trade is one which the President has gone into this afternoon, and the Committee will observe that in arguing these cases, there is no one standard to apply to all of them. For instance, the figures of 1913 are not to be taken as the standard for each one of the five duties. That is not convenient. The year 1913 is inconvenient for one, so the year 1920 has to be taken. The year 1920 is inconvenient for others, so they revert again to 1913.
5.0 P.M.
There is no recognised standard. There is a jockeying of the dates. The standards are put up or down simply to suit the argument that has to be faked in order to make out a case for these separate articles. The case that is made for the glove industry as to abnormal imports is one of the thinnest of the whole lot. If 1913 be taken, it is a very remarkable fact that the present foreign imports into this country are far less than in 1913. It is quite true there are fewer gloves being worn in this country than in 1913, but import duties or the absence of them have nothing to do with that. One reason why people did without gloves during the War was that they were far too dear, and there was a considerable change even in the habit as to the carrying of gloves during that period. It has nothing to do with whether they were foreign or British commodities. These abnormal quantities, which appear to be the only justification the Committee could find for placing an import duty on these gloves, can only be reached by using the year 1920. If the year 1913 be taken, the whole case breaks down. Let the Committee realise what this means. It means that an industry of this kind, and the users of the commodity, are to be the victims, not of a great change in policy, not of the adoption of one set of great principles or another. They are to be the victims of a choice between one year and another, whether 1913 or 1920. Surely a move flimsy ground on which to base
a change in the custom of our finance, in the price to consumers could scarcely be conceived. The mere choice of one year or another is to decide the whole thing. The President of the Board of Trade goes through the Reports, and he adopts throughout the findings of the Committee I am afraid that is not likely to bring conviction to the minds of people who like myself, realise how the Committee is composed. I have the greatest respect for my friend, Sir Charles Stewart, but he has always been a convinced Protectionist. The other members of the Committee are not people of impartial mind at all. I must say that the lady who was a member of the Committee seemed to take a far wider view of British industry than her two colleagues, for she was wise enough to suggest that if you put import duties on fabric gloves, you should at least protect the interests of others who are supplying the raw material for these industries, and insist on making provision for these industries. Whenever we embark on one of these experiments of imposing a duty in the direction of helping one industry, you injure some other industry.
The fact is you are distributing your benefits without any equitable ground whatever, and that is done partly because the organisation of the particular industry concerned is good, partly because it has advocates who state its case effectively, partly because owing to the luck of the last General Election the President of the Board of Trade happens to be a Protectionist, partly because he sticks to his principles and selects a Protectionist committee to deal with this trade which seeks to get an advantage.
Let us look at the direction from which the danger is coming. It does not appear yet to have come in any great volume from Germany, though I presume that-German gloves will be one of the topics which the President of the Board of Trade will have to discuss once more with the representative of Germany when he is dealing with the German Treaty. In 1924 Germany sent us 34,600 dozen pairs of leather gloves as compared with 341,000 dozen pairs of leather gloves in 1913. France in 1913 sent us 466,000 dozen pairs, and in 1924 the figure dropped to 210,000 dozen pairs. The imports from Austria
and Hungary have almost disappeared. Yet in 1913 they sent us 369,000 dozen pairs. That is qualified by the fact that there has been an increase in imports from Czechoslovakia, but since the War the imports from Czechoslovakia have risen to only 115,000 dozen pairs. The total for all three countries is less than one-third of the amount sent by Austria and Hungary before the War, and Austria and Hungary are sending practically nothing now. There is a very large increase in the quantity of gloves sent from the United States of America and from some of the other foreign countries, including Italy. The whole case for this proposal is based on Italy and practically on nothing else.
It cannot be based on the United States of America. No representative of the Board of Trade would suggest that wages in the United States of America are lower than in Great Britain or that the American exchange is depreciated. It is impossible to say that the burdens thrown on American manufacturers are less than those thrown on manufacturers in this country, so that a case cannot be made against the United States. You cannot base the case on Austria-Hungary or Czechoslovakia because the volume of business is down and not up. It cannot be based on France because the imports from France are less than half what they used to be. It cannot be based on Germany because the imports from Germany are only about one-tenth of what they were. It can only be based on Italy. So the whole of this proposal is really aimed against Italy. The case against Italy is not enough to justify a general tariff. This is a general tariff. It applies to all countries. It is remarkable to find the President of the Board of Trade taking the line now that because there is, according to his ideas, a case against Italy, therefore we should apply the duties to all the other countries to which not one of the conditions laid down in the White Paper can be applied.
There is another aspect of the matter which we did not discuss yesterday, and which ought to be brought to the mind of the President of the Board of Trade. That is, the effect of the accumulation of small duties upon the rapidity with which our trade can be
done. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that one effect of the silk duties has been to choke up many of the warehouses of the Port of London. One thing that has been the making of the Port of London has been the rapidity with which cargoes can be shipped and transhipped. Now this is interfered with because the Customs authority find it so difficult to get through all the goods that have to be examined, and large numbers of bales of goods are being held up, to be subjected to examination, and the warehouses are chock full of goods which cannot be moved so rapidly. In Manchester and Liverpool exactly the same thing is taking place. You have got the same thing at Hull, and yet there is no representative of the Customs present to tell us anything about it. It is the business of some representative of the Treasury. We might have had at least the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to let us know about this and explain to us how the Customs have been running during the last 12 months.
The right hon. Gentleman is going to put sand into the machinery of trade. He is going to impede trade. Whatever little benefit may be done to the individual trade by the proposed duty, the fact is that every one of these duties will have the disadvantage of adding to the friction of trade as a whole. I am not thinking merely of a few bales of gloves being held up, but of all the rest of the goods which are held up behind them. These proposals taken as a whole, in conjunction with the silk duties embodied in the last Budget, have done a great deal to necessitate an additional amount of working capital being incorporated into every business. You cannot have goods lying waiting for months without having a large amount of working capital with which to handle them. The proper direction to take, both by the President of the Board of Trade and the Treasury, is to facilitate transfer of every kind and the exchange of commodities with the greatest possible rapidity. That higher speed would add to the prosperity of this country far more than the cumulative effect of all these duties, and achieve what is in the minds of a great many people who do not care a. fig about cutlery, gloves or anything else, but who
are anxious for a large turnover of our trade as rapidly as possible.
I object to these duties as a whole. The whole tendency of this policy is to turn the mind of the business men, the manufacturer, away from the vital matters of their industry. They are being taught not to think of keeping back a large amount of their profits to add to the capital expenditure on their works. They are not being encouraged, under this scheme, to renew their machinery. There is no incentive under any of these arrangements to incorporate into their staff in their partnerships and as directors or managers the very best brains they can buy. They are told that the difficulties and deficiencies can be made up by import duties. They are practically being invited not to deal with the real fundamentals of a successful business but to go to the Board of Trade with a specially prepared brief, and press on the President by every means in their power that they want to get assistance through import duties. Then the next thing which they have to do is not once more to improve their machinery, to get the best tools that the world can produce, but to get hold of the best counsel which money can buy in the Temple, and then they have to come to Palace Yard and state their case, when they ought to be working out their own problems in their own works and warehouses.
It is the diversion of such great numbers of business men from the real basis of prosperity to purely political channels which is one of the most deleterious results of the policy on which the Government has embarked The Committee was the committee selected by the right hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt that it has worked to the best of its belief in an equitable and impartial spirit, but directly you get into the region of import duties you must shut out of your mind all idea of being impartial. I would not dream of standing up in this House and saying that I was impartial on the subject of import duties. I believe them to be most objectionable and I shall say so on every possible occasion, because I believe that they will check the advancement of great industries, that they will place obstacles in the way of trade as a whole and that they will divert the attention
of business men from purely business to political channels, and will lead to the corruption of our electoral as well as of our administrative system.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down shows by his remarks that he and those associated with him have learned nothing and forgotten nothing as a result of what has happened during the last few years. It is only on the occasion of a bye-election that we find their accredited representatives coming forward and advocating a purely Protective duty, and doing so with a very singular want of success.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Hear, hear!

The CHAIRMAN: As he was approaching his peroration the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) got somewhat outside the terms of the Motion under discussion, and I was about to intervene just as he finished, but I think that I may give a warning on the subject to other right hon. Gentlemen.

Captain BENN: Would it not be in order for the right hon. Baronet the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) to give us his view about the extension of import duties to agriculture?

The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not.

Sir R. SANDERS: What I should be interested to know is what is the attitude on this question of the official Opposition, because this case was brought before the Committee by representatives of the workers. They have a Joint Industrial Council in that industry, and the case in favour of the duty was put forward by that Joint Industrial Council. There were three unions involved, the Glovers' Union, the National Union of General Workers and the Workers' Union, and representatives of all those unions supported this application for the imposition of duties and they went further. I am always very glad if anyone expresses sympathy with the objects which I have in view, but I am much more glad and much more convinced of his earnestness if he not only gives me his sympathy, but gives me a subscription for my association, and that is what the representatives of these unions have done, because the expenses
of making this application were borne, not only by the manufacturers, but also by the trade unions concerned. On the first day on which this application was argued, the actual representative of the industry was not a manufacturer, not a paid counsel, but a representative of one of the unions concerned. It is true that afterwards, when counsel were briefed by the opponents of the application, it became necessary to brief learned counsel on the other side as well, but in the initial stage the case was actually conducted by a trade union representative.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has stated fully and clearly on what the case is based. There is no doubt whatever about the stringency of foreign competition in this case. The figures prove it clearly enough. It is a curious instance, because you have at the same time a declining home consumption and very largely increased foreign imports. The reasons why the foreign manufacturer is able to beat the English glove manufacturer were all brought before the Committee. They are because the foreign hours are longer and the foreign wages are lower, and it is the fact that in the past the English industry had already been cut out in the lighter forms of gloves, but up till now it has been able to hold its own with the heavier leather gloves, and it is only in recent years, since the War, that the competition in these heavier leather gloves has become so strenuous as to make it necessary that a duty should be imposed if this trade is to be preserved for our people at all. The Committee found that the home factories were efficient. Discussing the case of cutlery yesterday, an hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench stated that the conditions in the cutlery factories were not all that they should be, but as far as I know—and I have seen something of them—the conditions in the glove factories, at all events in my county, are certainly efficient and up to date, and I have never heard the slightest complaint in the county about the accommodation of the workpeople in those factories.

Mr. KELLY: Does that apply to outworkers as well?

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, they make their own conditions. I will say a word
about that in a moment. The Committee found the case proved. The right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) adopted an argument which I think was hardly worthy of him. As the Committee has decided against his case, he abuses the Committee. He says that it was not really an impartial Committee. Well, I do not like the spirit which abuses the umpire when he gives a decision against you.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I did not abuse him. I said they were Protectionists, and well known to be Protectionists, before they were appointed.

Sir R. SANDERS: You said they were not impartial.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is no more abuse to describe a gentleman as a Protectionist than it would be for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to describe me as a Free Trader.

Sir R. SANDERS: I am quite ready to withdraw the word "abuse" if the right hon. Gentleman objects to it, but I do not think you can cast any worse reflection upon a Committee that is set up for a judicial function than to say it is not impartial, and I think it is an unworthy thing to say. At all events, this Committee has found that the case is proved, and I do not see how they could arrive at any other conclusion. The conditions had been laid down for them. The conditions that they had to decide in a judicial manner had been before this House and decided by this House, and all that the Committee had to do was to decide whether the case was proved or not. They have decided that it was proved, and I do not see, as I say, how they could have arrived at any other conclusion on the facts before them.
I want to say a word about the opposition. The opposition which came before this Committee sprang entirely from the big wholesale houses. The retailers considered the matter and formally arrived at the conclusion that they were not going to oppose an application. I do not pretend that this is a big industry, or that a duty such as is proposed in this Resolution is a big thing, but it does affect a few thousand workpeople, and it does affect what I think we ought to promote in every way we can, and that is a country industry. I believe that it
is for the good of the country that we should have these industries, not only in our black, smoky towns, but in the countryside as well, and when you find an industry that is already established in an agricultural county, as this gloving industry is established in Somerset—and about half the gloves produced in this country are made in Somerset—I think that all those who talk about bringing people back to the land, or keeping people on the land, which, I believe, is the latest anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman's party, ought to grasp every means that they can, when they get a going industry and an efficient industry established in a country district, of seeing that that industry should be enabled to remain there. It is good for the people who work in the industry, it is good for them that they should live in healthy surroundings, among green fields and not in the smoky towns, and it is good for those in the surrounding districts as well.
One of the worst troubles—and I am sure this will appeal to the Opposition— in the country districts is the low rate of wages paid to the agricultural industry. If there is one thing that can tend to raise those wages it is a competing industry in the villages that is well paid, and you get that in the gloving industry. Having an industry of that sort raises the standard of life in the whole district. The glover is drawing £3 and £4 a week. The village that I know best, where the gloving industry is going on, is the most prosperous village of its sort in the whole neighbourhood.

Mr. KELLY: What is its name?

Sir R. SANDERS: Milborne Port, and if you speak to anyone in that neighbourhood they will tell you so. The fact that men are able to earn high wages in the factories, and that the wives and daughters of those engaged in agriculture are able very often to earn a bit by doing out-work from the factory, raises the whole standard of living in the district. I do not think we ought to throw that away if we can possibly avoid it. It has another effect as well. Having a manufacture of this sort in a country neighbourhood tends to keep the local arrangements of that neighbourhood up to date, and at this village of which I am
speaking, directly the housing scheme came on, houses were started on a business-like footing, and I think it was one of the most successful housing schemes that was initiated in the whole county.
Another reason why we ought to do everything we can to keep these village industries going is the question of apprenticeships for boys. We do not want boys to leave the country if they can possibly make a living there, and this gloving industry gives them a chance of doing so. At the present time they can barely take on one in 20 as apprentices, because the trade is actually going down month by month. By the agreement of the industrial council, the standard number to take on is one in five, and those who are engaged in the industry inform me that, if this duty is put on, they will be able to take on one in five as apprentices from the putting on of the duty. Who will be the worse, supposing this duty is put on? A few people may have to pay a little more for their gloves. I am not going to dispute that— it stands to reason that it should be so— but if they do, I think the sacrifice they will have to make in paying a little extra for their gloves will be very well compensated, indeed, by giving more employment and prosperity in a whole district, and whatever expense that may be, it will be very cheaply bought.

Mr. KELLY: I had not intended to join in the discussion at this early stage, but after listening to the right hon. Gentleman, who has just sat down, I think it is only fair to the Committee that a different view, as to the action of the joint industrial council, should be placed before it. We were told that the trade unions were unanimous upon this question.

Sir R. SANDERS: I did not say so. I said that the trade unions supported it and subscribed towards it.

Mr. KELLY: I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the trade unions were not unanimous.

Sir R. SANDERS: I did not say they were not unanimous. The hon. Member is not right to misquote me. I do not know whether they were unanimous or not and I have no means of knowing.

Mr. KELLY: I quite accept that. It shows, at any rate, that this Committee is not asked to accept that the whole of the trade union people and the workers employed in the gloving industry have expressed a desire for this Safeguarding Act to be operated in their interests. I am an officer of the union that probably has the largest number of people employed in the gloving trade. I have had some connection, too, as a candidate—I do not know whether it is permissible to say that here—in the part of Somerset to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, and I can say that the executive of the trade union has never at any moment during the years that it has been connected with the gloving trade agreed with a demand or a claim being made for the application of the Safeguarding of Industries Act to the gloving trade.

Sir R. SANDERS: They have subscribed, anyway.

Mr. KELLY: I will deal with that in a moment, If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had known something about the Joint Industrial Council he would have been much more careful in his statement. We certainly are a member of that Joint Industrial Council. We have, I think, four or five representatives. On occasion I myself have attended meetings of the kind referred to. The majority of those present decided that they would subscribe to some of the expenses consequent upon this particular application. The employers are also members of that Council. The majority decided to find a portion of the expenses, and, accepting majority rule, we have had to pay our share of the expenses, whilst disagreeing from the whole scheme.

Sir R. SANDERS: Majority rule!

Mr. KELLY: The majority of the representatives on the Council, not the majority of the workpeople! We were told that the case was presented by a member of a trade union, an officer. I would have liked to hear the name of that representative. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to give us the name; probably I might be able to guess it. I do not know whether it is permissible in this House to do so, but I should imagine that it would be the Secretary of the Council who happens to be a member of a trade
union, and who, I believe, did appeal before this particular Committee. I have had some experience of that particular representative if he is the one to which reference has been made. At a bye-election in Yeovil some years ago that particular gentleman assisted a friend of the right hon. Gentleman across the floor by opposing me at that particular time. There are people, even trade unionists, who make mistakes sometimes, and there are others—I am not suggesting members of the Conservative party—and a mistake has been made on this occasion. Certainly, so far as we are concerned, we are opposed to the present proposal, not only because we see no advantage in it for Somerset, but no advantage in it for the glove makers of Oxfordshire, or Essex, or Devonshire.
I was hoping that, we would have heard from the President of the Board of Trade how this 33 per cent. is going to help these glove makers. If this 33 per cent. is placed on, it wall increase the price of the gloves. Does that mean that we are going to have the opportunity in this country of manufacturing more gloves? The answer to that, I think, is contained in the Report. We find in the Report— I do not mean that I have waited for this "Report, because employers have told me of it. They do not complain so much of foreign competition as of the retailers in London. These retailers charge something like twice the amount that they pay to the manufacturer when they purchase the gloves—twice the price for gloves that have only travelled from Yeovil to London, or from Oxfordshire to London. Then we are told that we cannot carry on this industry unless there is this tariff of 33 per cent. placed upon the foreign gloves. It is not a tariff for which the employers are asking. What the employers want is to keep out the whole of the gloves made in any other part of the world. They have said that quite openly, while at the same time they have neglected to help forward their own export trade. They have lost it by not taking care of it in those parts of the world where they have had some control in the years that are gone.
But I was interested in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to why we should favour these country industries. One would imagine that in all these glove works, these men, women and girls
are living and working under ideal conditions. One would imagine that everyone of these people working in Somerset were under much happier conditions than, to use the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman himself, "Those who were working in the smoky towns." People in that part of the world are living under conditions of housing as bad as anything you can find in the towns.

Sir R. SANDERS: Do you see that in the Report?

Mr. KELLY: I see that in many parts of the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman. I have seen conditions in Somersetshire as bad or worse than those that can be found in any of the big cities. But that is not to say that we should save a particular industry because it is a country industry. One, however, would imagine that the wages paid to these people are of such a level that we can feel proud of them. I notice that neither the President of the Board of Trade or the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke told us what were the wages paid in this industry. Neither told us about the wages paid in other countries. Neither have told us of their long hours. We had a statement from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who told us, though he could not prove it, that the workpeople were engaged for 40 hours a week abroad. When we questioned that statement we were told that the Department had no means of knowing how many hours a week were worked by the outworkers engaged in making gloves, or of the material that they took away from the factory. It is upon that kind of evidence that this Committee of Ways and Means has to come to a conclusion—when they do not know the condition of the outworkers, or how long they work. Despite that fact, and that the Committee have no knowledge as to how long the outworkers in other countries are working, we are asked to pass these proposals! And that is the kind of evidence that we are asked to support this Committee's findings on. It is not fair to the House. It is not fair to the workpeople. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite would appreciate it if they had anything to do with the industry. It is not fair
to the workpeople to hold out to them hopes that this industry is going to be a prosperous one in the sense of making huge profits, and prosperous in the sense of finding plenty of work. We have been told that as the first object is to find work for the workpeople, that if the 33 per cent, tariff is imposed, then the glove cutters will be benefitted, and that instead of there being one apprentice for every 21 working, there will be one apprentice for every five. Where is the evidence of that? Who has told hon. Gentlemen that? If the custom of the trade is as suggested opposite, how is it that these are not already employed? In reference to Yeovil and the places round about it, can hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they have not had good work during the last seven or eight years?

Mr. GREENE: Trade is going down!

Mr. KELLY: I should, at any rate, like your evidence on that. I should like to hear some of the employers whom I have met in various places. I should like to hear them. To make the statement that a 33 per cent. tariff is going to help us at this time is deluding the people, and is unfair to those engaged in the industry.

Mr. GREENE: After the sitting of last night, I am sure it is the general wish that speeches should not only be few, but short. I feel, however, that as a representative of a district which is perhaps the chief centre of the gloving industry in the country, it is desirable that I should say a few words on the subject now before the Committee. Let me begin by referring to the two points put before the House by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). One was the damage that would be done to an industry in its export trade by protecting it. In order to prove this point he quoted the lace and the silk industries. Then he told us that every manufacturer was in favour of Free Trade for other manufacturers, but desired Protection for himself. Therefore it seems to me, Mr. Hope, that these two arguments are mutually destructive, unless we come to the conclusion that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer alone knows how the manufacturers ought to carry out their business, and unless he is prepared to say that no manufacturer really under-
stands his own business. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor would hot have made these remarks if he had really studied the history of the glove industry. It is a very long history extending over 700 years. With the permission of the Committee I will refer to several periods in that history to show the result of the greatest form of Protection, namely, prohibition of foreign imports, and of mild Protection and Free Trade. In doing that I will give a certain amount of pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for W. Swansea (Mr. Runciman), because he seems to have a rooted objection to any particular year being specified. I will give him the chance to take any year he likes in the 700 in the history of the glove industry.
First of all, I would like to point out that the gloving industry was considered so extremely important for the welfare of the country that, in the 15th century, Parliament actually prohibited the importation of foreign gloves. The result was that trade did so exceedingly well that in the 17th century they could scarcely find enough leather to provide for their output, not only that for home consumption, but for export. The Guild of Leather Workers found it necessary to forbid bootmakers and saddlers to use sheepskin, because otherwise the glovers would be unable to fulfil their home and foreign contracts. I rather stress this point in order to show that protection of an industry does not kill its exports. From that time on the industry became more and more prosperous, and I find that in my own constituency, which in 1808 had a population of only 19,000, there were 6,000 glovers, and a few years later, in 1825, my constituency and the surrounding districts had no less than 30,000 working glovers at work and no unemployed at all. In the following year that panacea beloved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), that panacea for all ills, Free Trade, was introduced, and immediately the gloving industry came to an absolute standstill. Representations were made to Parliament on the matter, and the answer given was that this was a gesture to France, and that it was hoped France would return the compliment. France admired the gesture immensely, but not to the extent of nattering it by
imitation. After several years my predecessor in the representation of Worcester (Colonel Davis), in the year 1832, persuaded Parliament to put a duty on the importation of foreign gloves, and the immediate result was that the industry regained a third of its previous prosperity, but, unfortunately, half the workers remained without work and the other half found themselves on short time. In my constituency the rates doubled.
Coming to later times, I find that in 1842 that tariff was reduced, and in 1860 was abolished altogether, since when the decrease m the prosperity of the industry has been nothing less than calamitous. In the City of Worcester, which I believe to be the biggest gloving constituency in England, there is at the present time only one cutter-apprentice, a most serious thing, because, if that is not remedied, in a short time we shall have neither apprentices to take up the work of those who taught them, nor shall we have those who taught them, because they will have passed on. In the last 100 years the number of glovers in England has dropped from 60,000 working (on full time) in 13 different centres, to less than 10,000 working in only three large centres, at the present time. The output of gloves has dropped from 1,000,000 dozen pairs 100 years ago to less than 500,000 dozen pairs now. When wanting to protect anything, one is generally confronted with the argument that the reason for the decline of any particular industry is a lack of demand. I have been told that with respect to the glove industry by people who have not studied the subject, but 100 years ago, when gloving was at the height of its prosperity, the total demand for home consumption and for export was 1,000,000 dozen pairs, and now that demand, instead of having decreased, has greatly increased.

Mr. THURTLE: Would the hon. Member tell me if there, has been any increase in population in that period?

Mr. GREENE: I thought that was so very obvious that it was hardly necessary for me to point it out, nor need I stress that that is the reason for the increase in the demand. In 1913 the demand had increased to over 2,000,000 dozen pairs, and at the present time, in spite of the effects of the War, trade depression and the
smaller buying capacity of the people as a whole, the demand for home consumption and for export is a million and a third dozen pairs. It is for these reasons that I wish to support the Resolution, but before I sit down I should like to answer one or two remarks made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). He said three or four things I was very glad to hear, because they are all directly in support of the Resolution. He talked about the opinion of the workers them-selves, the members of the unions. I would like to inform him and the Committee that in my studies on this subject —and the advice I have received has come entirely from working glovers and members of glovers' unions—I have found they are strongly in favour of a Resolution such as this. I meet these people personally, I consult with them, and I see them in their works and in their homes, and I can tell this Committee as an absolute fact that in my constituency, at any rate, they are absolutely solid. The hon. Member knows more about Yeovil than I do, because he had an, unfortunate experience there.

Mr. KELLY: No, quite a fortunate one.

Mr. GREENE: He tells us that the glovers in Yeovil are dead against this safeguarding. The hon. Member himself is against safeguarding, his opponent was for safeguarding, and the glovers of Yeovil chose his opponent. Having chosen his opponent they have since then had two opportunities of reconsidering their decision, but they have stuck to their first choice.

Mr. KELLY: I am sorry to interrupt, but I would like to know if his observation applies to the man whom I first fought, one of the finest men who ever entered this House, the late Mr. Aubrey Herbert. Was he in favour of safeguarding?

Mr. GREENE: I am afraid I was not in the House with Mr. Aubrey Herbert. I only knew him personally as a friend, and not politically, but I will refer to more modern dates with which, I think, the hon. Member cannot disagree.

Mr. KELLY: Two years ago only!

Mr. GREENE: The hon. Member also stated that the introduction of this duty
would cause an increase in the cost of gloves. He kept asking us for proofs and evidence, but he gave absolutely none himself when he made that statement. I am told by supporters of mine who are interested in the gloving trade as much as he is, that if they can get the works going full time the overhead charges will come down, and as these are reduced so will the cost on each pair of gloves come down, and it is more than probable that owing to this duty a pair of gloves will be sold cheaper than before. That is merely a prophecy. The hon. Member has prophesied one thing, and I tell him my supporters prophesy another thing.
The hon. Member also referred to ideal conditions of working. God knows the conditions are not ideal under which many of these poor people work. I have been in the homes of some of these outworkers and seen poor old women working with their glasses on in a bad light at night sewing, sewing, sewing, doing their best to earn a living; and that is absolutely no reason why we should refuse to give them the help which we believe this duty will give them. The hon. Member wanted to know what hours outworkers worked. It is very hard to discover, but I am informed by the Chairman of the Joint Industrial Council that in my constituency gloving has come to such a pass that in many cases the outworkers only get about two full days work in three weeks; and in addressing the Committee this evening I am hoping to get them to understand the point of view of those who want to do something for the workers of this country. These duties can do absolutely no harm to anybody at all. Gloving is not a key industry. No industry will be ruined if—I say if—the cost of gloves goes up; but, on the other hand, good will be done to other trades—the sheep raisers, the tanners, the button manufacturers, the box manufacturers; and, above all, good will be done to the actual workers in the gloving industry, a people who do not know the meaning of the words ca' canny.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am sure the House will appreciate the zeal and I think I may say the affection with which the hon. Member has spoken of his constituency. I would like to explain to him what is our point of view with respect to the difficulties amongst his constituents,
of which he has been telling us. He and the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him stated that there is unemployment among the makers of leather gloves. It is significant that the Committee which inquired into the subject gave no figures of the actual degree of unemployment in the industry. They satisfied themselves with a statement that there was unemployment in gloving centres, but they gave nothing to indicate that unemployment in the leather glove industry is as great as the unemployment in our great export industries in which the workers will be penalised for the sake of the specially selected case. There is no proof in this Report, and as that was one of the subjects into which the Committee were asked to inquire, we are entitled to say that if they select one industry to be treated apart from other industries we ought to have figures which give some indication that the industry is entitled to exceptional treatment.

Mr. GREENE: Surely you are given figures.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: There are no papers giving figures of unemployment. There are figures of a falling off in demand, which I will deal with in a moment. Our point of view is that although there may be depression, a certain degree of depression, in this industry, this very Report itself contains the proof that that depression is not due to any abnormal import from foreign countries and will not be cured by the duties which this Report suggests.

Mr. GREENE: May I ask what a normal import is?

6.0 P.M.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I shall explain what it is, because that is one of the very questions which this Report discusses, and I have risen to call attention to the finding which the Report presents to us. This Report shows, by the figures on page 7, that what has happened has been a fall in the demand for leather gloves, both in the foreign trade and in the home trade, a fall which one would expect as the result of the general loss in purchasing power since the War. There is nothing remarkable in that, but what this Report also indicates is that a duty of 33▴ per cent. will not in fact touch the causes of that fall and will impose a hardship upon the
poorer sections of this country who cannot afford to pay more for their gloves and will in many cases have to go without gloves altogether. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene) asked me what I meant by "normal imports" and "normal competition." The answer is given by the President of the Board of Trade who laid down the conditions into which these Committees had to examine. Abnormal competition was competition which was abnormal taking as the standard the ordinary normal competition before the War. I say that this Report shows by that test that, so far from the competition being abnormal competition relatively to 1913, it is less to-day than it was before.
The whole thing is very clear. This Report shows that the demand for the sale of gloves has fallen off by 500,000 dozen pairs in this country. It also shows that that has only fallen to the extent of 50,000 dozen pairs in regard to home manufacturers, and the remaining 450,000 dozen pairs fall in the sales has to be taken from the imports into this country. The result is that here you have it in the table that, whereas the imports for consumption of gloves in this country was 75 per cent. in 1913, it has fallen to 67 per cent. to-day, and the proportion of the home consumption according to our home manufacturers has increased in a similar ratio. So that as a matter of fact, according to the very best evidence in the White Paper itself, the whole case breaks down on these grounds alone. These Committees were not asked to inquire whether there were imports of foreign articles into this country, but simply to inquire whether the imports were abnormal and unprecedented in proportion to 1913, and that is found to be contrary to the facts according to the figures given on page 7 of the Report itself.
May I now come to the question of unemployment. It is perfectly clear that there is a certain degree of unemployment and depression in the glove trade. The reason there is that unemployment and depression is simply due to the falling off in the export trade. Hon. Members will find all this on page 7 of the Report where it says that in the exporting trades exports of British manufacture have fallen from 230,000 dozen pairs in 1913 to 40,000 dozen
pairs in 1924. That is to say, it is the export trade in leather gloves which is in a depressed condition. It is that trade which now represents only one-sixth of the quantity and value that it had before the War, and that reduction of exports by five-sixths is, in itself, a complete explanation of the unemployment in that trade.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) quoted and himself suggested that the fall in the export trade in leather gloves was partly due to the fact that the manufacturers of leather gloves had not concentrated sufficient attention on that part of their trade, and therefore the depression is due to the negligence of the manufacturers in this respect. I have just read in the "Manchester Guardian" an interview with the manager of Messrs. Phillips and Company, well known as suppliers to the general drapery trade of Lancashire and Yorkshire. I quite realise why this evidence was not permitted before the Committee, and I think it is evidence which this Committee ought to have. It is worth while reading that opinion to this Committee as to what is the reason for the fall in the export trade and what is the real cause of the unemployment. This manager says:
The English manufacturer should help himself by developing his business on proper lines and taking advantage of the unlimited opportunities awaiting him elsewhere. My duties take me into many countries, and I say emphatically that there are markets for English gloves. The complaint of those who have to buy at present from people who simply speculate in English leather gloves is that no English manufacturer calls upon them. Before the War we had a fine export business with America, and we have lost it through neglect, and it will not be regained by methods of Protection and the raising of prices.
That is why the export trade in leather gloves has fallen to one-sixth of its pre-War dimensions. Here you have men in the trade complaining that the manufacturers are losing that export trade through their own unwillingness to take advantage of the opportunities that offer, and here you find this Committee reporting that this depression is due to excessive imports which as a matter of fact are lower than they were before the War. Under these circumstances, I cannot see that the Report of this Committee justifies the conclusion at which it arrives. There is one further fact
brought out in this Report. The Report suggests that even if you did attempt to keep out some of these cheaper gloves the fact remains that they are not gloves in effective competition with the heavier and more expensive gloves which we make in this country, and that if you kept them out it would not mean that gloves of a similar quality would be produced here.
I see that a gentleman, named Fownes, gave evidence before the Committee, and he said that, so far as a large proportion of the gloves coming into this country were concerned, he did not make them and he could not make them, because it would take years to arrange for his workpeople to make them. It means, that gloves, corresponding to those gloves which are now imported, would not be manufactured in this country. The workers of this country will not say: "Because I cannot get the cheaper gloves, I will buy the expensive ones," and the result will be that the imposition of this kind of duty will mean that a certain number of the poorer people will suffer a little more discomfort and the manufacturers of gloves will receive no corresponding advantage.

Captain W. W. SHAW: I consider that the introduction of these Resolutions is the most important thing the Government have done. I believe they will be a great help to our industries and will relieve unemployment. I only wish that the Government had adopted them a little earlier. We all know that hon. Members opposite are very much opposed to these duties. Of course, they opposed the McKenna Duties, because they did not believe in them. I and a good many of my hon. Friends, owe our success at the last election to our advocacy of the imposition of the McKenna Duties. We are often taunted in this respect about being Protectionists, but the renewal of the McKenna Duties is something very different from the general policy of Protection which was rejected in 1923. On that occasion the electorate were made to fear Protection because hon. Members brought forward the story of the big loaf and the little loaf, and they told the people that under Protection they were going to have only the small loaf, while under Free Trade they would have the big loaf.
Another point is the contribution which will be made to the Treasury by these
duties. I think it was the Leader of the Liberal party who said, "After all, what did the McKenna Duties bring in? It was only a question of a few millions."

The CHAIRMAN: That question is not in order in a Debate on the Glove Duty.

Captain SHAW: I know that hon. Members were allowed to wander far and wide yesterday, and I thought I might be allowed a little latitude to-day.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, we agreed to have a general discussion yesterday, and that is all the more reason why we should not repeat it to-day.

Captain SHAW: These Resolutions are a great protection for our industry and for labour. Many workers are now realising the importance of it, and they are asking for this form of protection. I come across a great many in my position, and they are constantly pointing out to me how this unrestricted competition is causing wages to fall because the manufacturer cannot afford to pay them. Other countries have adopted Protection, and therefore we have to protect ourselves against the kind of labour we meet with abroad. I do not agree that a higher price for the articles will necessarily follow, but, even if it did, in certain oases, mean a higher price for the articles turned out, I say it will be a splendid thing for our country, because it means employment, and, after all, that is what we are after. We had a wonderful speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), giving a picture of what the dole was and the misery that it brings. Surely—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is now going into an economic discussion like that which we had yesterday, and may, perhaps, have again on the Second Reading; but this is only a question of the Glove Duty so far, and I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to adhere to that.

Captain SHAW: I will endeavour to do so. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) was talking about our exports, and saying that the great trouble was that we were losing our exports to America, and that possibly it was through our manufacturers' neglect. Let me point out that America, when she started the manufacture of gloves, had to start a new
industry, and started it under Protection, by protecting her own workmen and her own industry. In the result she has built up such an enormous trade that she is able to export in competition with the rest of the world. As regards the import of gloves, I see that the imports into this country from France between January and September of this year were nearly as much as they were in 1924. With regard to the exports in 1913, the exports of leather gloves were 229,000 dozen pairs, whereas in 1924 they were only 41,000 dozen pairs. We want to build up a strong home trade. By doing so we are able to compete with the rest of the world, and are able to export gloves, which is exactly what we want to do, and what, as the hon. Member for Keighley was pointing out, we have lost to such a large extent. I believe that by this protection we are going to build up a stronger home trade, not only in this, but in all the other industries that we protect, and then we shall be able to increase our exports.
I think the warmth of the statements of the Opposition is really in proportion to their hatred of the manufacturer. The idea they have is that by putting duties on these goods money is going to be put into the pockets of the manufacturers and capitalists, but really that is an absolutely wrong idea. It is putting money into the pockets of the employés, of the workers, and that is exactly what we want to do. We want to find them work and we are going to find them work by these duties that we hope will be put on. The delay between the passing of these Resolutions and the time when the. Finance Bill will become law is unfortunate, because of the time that will be allowed to importers of gloves in which to import tremendous quantities. We had that in the case of motor cars. When the duty was going to be put on they came in in tremendous numbers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, unfortunately, misjudged the matter, and he had to acknowledge that that hiatus meant a great loss to the Exchequer. In the same way, there will be a hiatus now, and I wish the Government would do something in that direction. I suggest that, if it be possible, they might make these Measures—certainly I would ask them to do so in regard to the Measure relating to gloves, and I hope they will in the case of the others also—they might possibly see their way to make these Measures retroactive.
Then we should not lose the duties on immense importations of gloves between the time when it was known that the Committee had reported favourably on it and the time when the duty actually comes into force.

Mr. HARRIS: We have had from the other side some very interesting and, if I may say so, rather significant speeches. I think I am right in saying that the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last, although he did not make it quite clear, has an important glove industry in his constituency, and certainly the first two Members who spoke from the other side made it clear that they spoke, not so much from the point of view of the general interests of the country, not so much from the point of view of the well-being of the whole community, but in order to feed the flame of the glove industry, because that was one of the important industries in their constituencies. That is a novel feature in the proceedings of the House of Commons of this country, although it is common, in particular, in America. In fact, in America it is quite common for Members specially to be described by the names of the particular industries in their constituencies: and it is a fact that such Members actually speak as "the Member for boots," "the Member for hosiery," "the Member for silk," and so on.
Now we have had the spectacle in the House of Commons during the last two days and the earlier hours of this morning, and again this afternoon, of Members coming down and speaking, not so much as members of great parties dealing with a great Empire and dealing with great problems, but as "the Member for gloves," just as yesterday we had Members speaking as "the Member for cutlery," and no doubt we shall have others during the next few days. This will become an annual feature of our proceedings. We shall have Parliament asked to spend many hours considering special claims, special privileges, special requests from favoured industries to get special protection and special rights to dip into the pockets of the community by raising their prices owing to the removal of competition. That is a thing which must undermine the respect and weaken the moral authority of the—

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Could the hon. Member quote any case of a duty where the price has been increased?

Mr. HARRIS: That remark is quite irrelevant to what I was saying. I am talking about gloves at the moment, and the whole purpose of this duty is to raise prices. If the hon. Baronet will read the Report of the Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade—who is a Protectionist—he will see it is made quite clear that the only purpose and the only desire underlying this proposal is that English manufacturers may get higher prices. It is pointed out throughout the Report, as it was in the Report we discussed yesterday, that the whole object of coming to the House of Commons in order to propose a duty of 33▴ per cent, was not to keep prices at their present level, but to increase them by as much of that percentage as possible. I do not think the criticism of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) is relevant. If the result of putting on a tariff is that the price of the articles concerned is not to be raised to as high a figure as the public are willing to pay, the manufacturers wilt not give you a "thank you," because they say they cannot produce at a profit at the present moment.

Sir H. CROFT: Surely, the hon. Member must realise that, if a glove factory can turn out three times as many gloves as before, the price will not be increased, but will come down.

Mr. HARRIS: That is not necessarily so, in our experience of the matter. It is very easy to interrupt a Member and put him off his line of thought, but I think the hon. Baronet has not taken the trouble to study this particular industry. If he had, ho would have found that during 1920, as the Report says, there was, for special reasons, an immense growth of the glove trade. They had their opportunity then to standardise their products and reorganise their industry, and I see that one or two big firms like—I do not think I am giving them an unnecessary advertisement—the National Glove Company did reorganise their industry and standardise their products, and as the result of that they have been able in some particular lines to produce a very good article. Talking
particularly of the fabric glove trade, that is a German industry. It was started in Germany, one might almost say it was invented in Germany. The Germans had an immense start, and were especially favoured by the conditions in the manufacture of this, after all, comparatively small and unimportant article, compared with the big staple industries like the cotton, textile and woollen industries; and it is impossible, as the Report says, to compete against them without artificially increasing prices.
I thought it was not unreasonable, in order to find out the exact position of this industry, to make inquiries in the City, and I got a man, who was not a politician, to go and inquire this very morning, not from the point of view of the speech I was going to make here, but in order to get the actual facts and find out the difference in prices and in value between the German imported glove and the English manufactured glove. I have no doubt that the hon. Baronet will say that the English glove is very much better, but I took the trouble to get a couple of these gloves, and perhaps, as he has shown such a great interest in them, I may hand them to him across the Floor of the Chamber. Here is the English glove. The price is 30s. per dozen from the manufacturer. Here is the German glove. I, of course, not being an expert, am unable to distinguish the difference, but the price is 15s. a dozen. The hon. and gallant Member would say, "Raise the price." That is the whole purpose—to make the poor unfortunate working woman in the East End of London, whose circulation is often very bad, who has to go out in all weathers, and very often suffers from chilblains, pay double or treble the price—

Mr. STORRY DEANS: Will the hon. Member tell us at what price the German glove is sold—what the poor, wretched cold-fingered woman in the East End of London has to pay for it?

Mr. HARRIS: I agree. I think that one of the most interesting and significant things in this Report is that it shows that there is far too much profit put on by the middleman and the retailer. No doubt there is too much both on the English and on the German gloves.

Mr. DEANS: It is much less on the English gloves.

Mr. HARRIS: There is no reason to believe that our tradesmen and shopkeepers are not patriotic. On the contrary, the retail trade said that they were not considering this as a political problem, and were not willing to give evidence in this inquiry, but I think it is an unfair suggestion to make that the poor shopkeeper is anxious to push and sell German goods rather than English goods. On the contrary, a great campaign has been going on throughout the country, "Buy British Goods." I hope it will be a success, because I personally have a natural prejudice in favour of wearing and using British articles. It may be sentiment, but there it is; but it is not fair or reasonable or proper to go to the poorest of the poor in this country and say to them, "We will treat it as a crime, when conditions are bad, when trade is disorganised, and when there is a large amount of unemployment, if you buy a cheap article from abroad, and we are going to tax you because you do." Of course, it is absolute nonsense, because these very German gloves, we know, are made from yarn spun in Bolton. The Lancashire spinners, who have been going through a very bad time, and suffering a large amount of unemployment, have shown great courage, which should be an example to other manufacturers, and have not asked for Protection. On the contrary, they have sought to put their house in order and re-organise their industry, and both masters and men have faced the situation with courage and fortitude and imagination. They have not come whining to the House of Commons for protection. Now you are going, against their wishes, to interfere with their legitimate trade of exporting their yarn to the Continent to be made into gloves.

Sir H. CROFT: It would not affect the Lancashire trade.

Mr. HARRIS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is full of assumptions. He must have it drummed into his head once more that exports pay for imports. The Germans are not making these gloves for nothing. They have to be paid in some way. We do not pay in gold, and we have to pay in manufactured goods or coal. One of the troubles with the coal
industry is that imports are not coming in, and the foreigner cannot buy our coal. Why put artificial barriers in the way? You will not help; on the contrary, you will hinder the home trade, because if you increase prices you decrease the consuming capacity of the people. If people have to pay double the price for their gloves, they have less money left to pay for stockings, shoes, and the other articles that make up the household budget and that fill our shops, warehouses and factories.
But as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) said, there is a more serious side to this. I recognise the sincerity of hon. Members opposite who believe in Protection. They are as anxious as the whole Committee is to help employment, and they think that by singling out this and that industry, giving a favour here and a favour there, they are going to find work for a few hundred men in this or that factory. If I were satisfied that that policy would add to the total employment of the country, I should be the very last, at a time like this, to put difficulties in the way of supporting it, but British trade is a much larger thing. It has always been the miracle of the whole world that this little island, with 40,000,000 people, is able to do the most important foreign trade in the world. Here we are with very few raw materials. We have only one real advantage—coal as a raw material, and the courage and enterprise and initiative of our people, which have enabled us to build up this world-wide foreign trade on free imports, because the absence of Customs barriers has enabled manufacturers to buy in the cheapest market without the interference of the State. Now the Government come forward interfering here and there. I notice that in one of these samples there was some silk. Already the tariff that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth is so keen on is beginning to work. There is a tax on the English manufacturer which the foreigner who competes in neutral markets has not the disadvantage of.
Then there is perhaps another aspect. I represent a London constituency. London is a very remarkable place. There are 7,000,000 of population congregated round the River Thames with
no great industry and no great staple trade. Its existence is built up on the fact that it is a free port. It is the warehouse centre of the world. In Wood Street and St. Paul's Churchyard are the great merchants' warehouses that supply not only our home market, but up to a few months ago the world with a great part of its demands in textiles. These warehouses are not only filled with wares from our own country, but they draw their supplies from almost every country in Europe. There are great warehouses famous throughout the world for their gloves. It is the great glove department where merchants from Australia, New Zealand and South America come and see displayed before them the gloves of our own and other countries and do their trade here in London. That explains the thousands of offices, warehouses, carmen, packers, dockers and other people connected with trade round the River Thames. Now the Customs officer has been forced to interfere. Goods which used to come to London have been diverted to Hamburg. Already the Metz trade, which used to come through London, is going direct to our Dominions. Supplies that used to be handled in London, brought by our own ships, have been diverted to other ports, and London is suffering a large amount of unemployment already. I should like to take the hon. and gallant Gentleman down to the docks to see what is going on. He would find that a large amount of the goods that used to come to London not coming to London at all.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Can the hon. Member tell us how many gloves went to Hamburg?

Mr. HARRIS: No. They used to come to London so as to so to our warehouses and be distributed all over the world. Now they are not coming to London. They are going direct to Canada and South America, and our dockers, warehousemen and packers are done out of a job. This is a disastrous policy. It is going to injure our trade and weaken our status as a great industrial nation. This is only one clumsy example of the failure of the right hon. Gentleman. I know he is naked and unashamed. He is an honest Tariff Reformer. The Government as a whole pretend to have repented of their economic fallacies and
have assured us that they have given up Protection, in this Parliament, at any rate. Now through a side door—a dozen duties, next year a dozen more—they are trying to impose a general tariff. They have deceived the nation. I think when the time comes there will be a day of reckoning.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): Perhaps it will be as well at this stage for me to deal with some of the points that have been made. I have done that showman's business that the hon. Member has been doing, and it lost me an election. I remember in the 1923 election going round with pots and pans. It nearly lost me my seat, and the hon. Member is about as ineffective now.

Captain BENN: Did you give up your belief?

Sir B. CHADWICK: What I am concerned with is this, that here you have an industry of which, on the leather glove side, 60 per cent. is going to the foreigner and on the fabric glove side, 84 per cent. We may do a great deal with figures and statistics and theories, but that is the cold fact, that the great bulk of these two industries is in the hands of foreigners and our people are unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) spoke of the consumers being made victims. The fact is that the Committee have made their Report as the result of such evidence as was available to them. I am not saying the consumers are going to be the victims of anyone. I am not going to enter into the controversy as to where the tax is going to fall, but I do not admit by any means that the consumer is going to be the victim he depicts. I have heard it said often in other parts of the House that you are going to ruin this industry if you put on this tax. I am glad to find the right hon. Gentleman says you are going to help the industry, though he also says you may injure another in doing so. I do not mind him saying that, but I am very glad to hear from such an eminent authority that you are going to help this industry which you tax, and that will be something for the hon. Member, who is one of those who say you are going to
ruin industry. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) mentioned the effect that these Customs duties are having up to the present in the congestion of our ports and loss and discomfort generally. Can he name one instance; can he name any place where ho knows there is what really might be called port congestion owing to the administration of the Silk Duties? I really do not think he can, except that here and there a package has been held up or a consignment delayed.

Mr. HARRIS: I can give the hon. Member some information afterwards if he will give it attention.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: I know that hundreds of tons of cotton rags consigned to this country for paper-making have been held up in the Port of London because a few remnants of pink or blue ribbon were mixed with them.

Sir B. CHADWICK: Then the importer has made out his invoice incorrectly. If he had made a simple statement, the delay would not have happened. I come to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders). I was delighted to hear him say something on behalf of these committees. I have not yet heard any criticism from this side of the House of any of these committees which have turned down a duty. I have only heard criticisms of the committees which have reported in favour of a duty. Why is it that the committees which turned down the Superphosphate Duties and the Aluminium Holloware Duties have not been criticised? It is unfair. It is quite foreign to our standard of British public life that we in this House should take the view that committees appointed in this way should not be able to act impartially. I entirely disagree with my right hon. Friend when he spoke of bias.

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. I presume that hon. Members on this side will be entitled to discuss the reports of the Aluminium Holloware Committee and the Superphosphates Committee in reply to the hon. Member?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): If hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House will only make such short reference to those subjects as
has the hon. Member on the Front Bench, they will not be out of order, but other references would be out of order.

Sir B. CHADWICK: I wish I had the command of language and vigour of expression which is possessed by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) in order to reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). The hon. Member for Rochdale stated that he is one of the principal officers of the Glovers' Union, which has never been in favour of a tariff on gloves. The view I take of it is that the sooner the hon. Member's union get rid of him as one of its representatives, the better. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh" and "Hear, hear!"] I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member. I am merely expressing my views, having regard to what I think would be the benefits of a tariff for this trade. He went on to say that it is false to argue that this industry wants a 33⅓ per cent. duty for protection purposes. He says that what is wrong with the glove industry is that the middlemen's charges are so excessive. How mixed the hon. Member gets.

Mr. HARRIS: It was an hon. Member on the Government side of the House who said that, in an interruption.

Sir B. CHADWICK: At any rate, that is one of the difficulties which was pointed out by the Committee. It is not the manufacturers' prices that govern the cost of gloves, but the retailers' prices, and that profit goes into the pockets of people other than the manufacturers, and the worker gets no benefit from it. This question of the manufacturers' position is one that we must consider when we are thinking of those who are engaged in this industry by way of their capital, whether that capital be labour or money invested.
I would like to refer to the most interesting and excellent speech delivered by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene). Hon. Members opposite ask us to give evidence, and they say that such and such a thing will happen if we put on a duty. The only speech we have had which gives evidence from historic experience is the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester. He surveyed the history of the glove industry in his constituency from early days in a speech which, I am sure, would appeal to every
hon. Member, and he gave remarkable evidence of the effect of tariffs and the absence of tariffs in his own district.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) proceeded with the old argument that the duty will do no good. I would refer him to the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), who says that it will do good. The hon. Member for Keighley asked for evidence that the duty will do good. He has had evidence, and far more evidence than he could give to us as to the bad effects of a duty. He says that there are no figures of unemployment in this industry. The Ministry of Labour have not got the figures of unemployment in this industry separated from the general figures of unemployment, and, apparently, that is the reason why the Committee have rot had any figures before them; but I would point out that 67 per cent. of our leather glove trade is in the hands of foreigners, and 84 per cent. of our fabric glove trade is in the hands of foreigners.

Captain BENN: We are very much indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade for the frank and confiding way in which he always deals with public affairs, and for his great courtesy. He extended the subject of Debate so much that I am sure there will be many hon. Members anxious to participate in the fields of exploration which he opened up. He spoke of the Aluminium Hollow-ware Report. That Report was an attempt by a few interested manufacturers to get a tariff put upon the pots and pans of poor people. The fact that that proposal was too much for one of his committees is not a circumstance that will recommend the composition of the committees to Members of this House. He spoke of the Superphosphate Committee. That is a very interesting committee. There are agricultural Members present, and it would be very helpful to the House—I do not know whether it would be necessary to have a Secret Session in order to get the confessions of hon. Members opposite on the subject—if we could hear what agricultural Members opposite think of the proposition that fertilisers used by farmers should be taxed by a Conservative Government.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: When the hon. and gallant Member asked me a
question a few minutes ago, I thought he was asking for information, and I gave him information to the best of my ability, but he does not seem to have taken my advice.

Captain BENN: I am very sorry if my powers of compression are not equal to those of the Parliamentary Secretary. I will not pursue that point. He told us that in 1923 he went before his constituents to urge a general tariff. He said that he went surrounded by pots and pans, like a showman.

Sir R. CHADWICK: One of the hon. and gallant Member's friends had been trying to convince us by holding up silks and gloves.

Captain BENN: The difference is, that when the hon. Member opposite had expounded his views on Protection, and he found that they did not achieve success at the poll, he promptly gave them up; but my hon. Friend who expounds his belief in Free Trade is going to stick by it whether it wins or loses. That is the difference between hon. Members on this side and hon. Members opposite. The Parliamentary Secretary made a surprising statement. He said that the proposition he was putting before the Committee was supported by a mass of evidence. We would like to have that mass of evidence. I have read this Report of the Gloves Committee, and if there is one feature more than another which is noticeable it is that there is not a tittle of evidence in the Report. There are a number of assertions, but not one is supported by evidence. One of our grievances is that the President of the Board of Trade has appointed this Committee, has given them leave to sit secretly, and has given them leave, or perhaps he has instructed them—he will not answer us on this point —to exclude witnesses, and then we are told that there is a mass of evidence in support of these proposals, when a great body of opinion in the trade could not be heard. We have not seen the evidence, and the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely unwilling and has most steadily refused to lay before the Committee of Ways and Means the evidence on which he is proposing to put this tax upon the people.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to controvert some statements made as
to the congestion at the ports. We recognise that the Parliamentary Secretary has a very wide experience and that he is a man of great achievements in many walks of life, but I do not think that he would challenge the argument which has been put forward by men of experience in these matters, who allege that the ports are congested, not only because of the duties but because of the ridiculously impracticable character of the duties which are now imposed. It may be said that the Minister speaks with knowledge. What knowledge? Is there anyone in the Board of Trade whose duty it is to measure the flow of traffic into the ports or to take the figures at the Customs House? Nobody. That is the reason why we constantly ask that there should be on the Treasury Bench when we are discussing this subject some representative of the Department which is responsible for the entries into the ports of the country. We have appealed in vain. We cannot, with all our appeals to precedent, get what we want in that respect. We have utterly failed to get in Committee of Ways and Means a single representative of the Treasury. Of course, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury represents both the Customs and the Inland Revenue Department, and if he were here—[Interruption]. I will give the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Lane-Mitchell) opportunity, if he likes, to criticise me, if he cares to make a speech, but I do not pay regard to sotto voce interruptions, even from so distinguished a source.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Is it in order for an hon. Member to catch the eye of the hon. and gallant Member instead of your eye, Mr. Deputy-Chairman?

Captain BENN: The fact is that however much importance we attach to statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and we do attach great importance to what he says, he is not speaking officially when he denies congestion at the ports. He does not represent the only Department that knows anything about the condition at the ports. He complains because we say that these Committees are not to be trusted. What are these Committees and how are they set up? They are supposed to be set up under the conditions of the
White Paper. The White Paper has absolutely no authority. It is a paper laid in just the same way as any other Government paper is laid; just like the obiter dicta of any Minister might be laid in the form of a White Paper. It is not an Order of this House. It is not under any Statute. It is a few ideas of the President of the Board of Trade as to how he can introduce tariffs by a side wind. Supposing a number of eminent economists, men in public life, met together to consider the iron and steel industry, and supposing after they had heard evidence they decided that it was necessary that a duty should be put upon iron and steel—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is going back to the general discussion which we had yesterday. Under this particular Amendment, the discussion has to be kept to the question of gloves.

7.0 P.M.

Captain BENN: May I respectfully submit that the hon. Gentleman in his speech made a general defence of the composition of the Committees, and he said to us, "You attacked the composition of the Committees in general." He mentioned the Superphosphate and Aluminium Committees and he proceeded to defend the Committees. All I am asking is in special reference to the Report of the Committee on Gloves that I should be allowed to reply to the hon. Gentleman's defence of the character of this Committee, if you like, which recommends a duty on gloves.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In the course of Debate criticism has been thrown on this particular Committee, and the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench is bound sometimes to stand up for the Committee upon which he proposes to base his case.

Captain BENN: I shall endeavour to observe any ruling you give, but I understand the lattitude permitted to the hon. Gentleman is now restricted, and I am not permitted to attack the character of the Committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Some criticisms have been made, in consequence
of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made an answer which I allowed.

Captain BENN: In deference to your Ruling, we shall have to leave the unsupported statement of the hon. Gentleman as to the impartiality of these Committees. The first point I would mention in reference to this question is this, that in the Debate of December, 1924, in this House on the Motion in reply to the Gracious Speech we were told that these Committees were to answer these questions in the affirmative, and, if they did not answer them in the affirmative, then the Government would find themselves unable to recommend a duty on the particular article. I think it was in May of this year that the Cabinet decided to alter this proceeding. The "Times" newspaper, which was obviously inspired from official sources, pointed out that the answers to these questions in the desired sense was not essential, and once that was decided by the Cabinet the Committees, of course, took instructions from the President of the Board of Trade, who is a member of the Cabinet, and consequently there was no use us persuading ourselves to believe that these Committees set up by the President of the Board of Trade were in any way hound by the questions or indeed compelled to answer them in the affirmative before a duty could be recommended.
Let me take one or two of these questions with strict regard to the question of gloves. The first is this: We understood that the purpose of the safeguarding scheme was to safeguard industries and not to create a new industry. If you are going to extend that and say, "We will create such a tariff barrier as will enable us to plant, practically for the first time in this country, a new industry," yon are going far beyond anything originally intended in the safeguarding scheme. This has a very important bearing on the negotiations with Germany. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the German delegates said, "We can understand you imposing tariffs for the purpose of safeguarding certain industries: what we object to is a tariff for creating new industries, especially in industries directly aimed at our own export industries."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now raising the whole argu-
ment of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. That cannot be permitted on this occasion.

Captain BENN: Let me assure you I never mentioned the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I mentioned the White Paper on which this Committee on gloves is acting and I have no desire to extend the scope of the Debate, but I ask permission to examine in its widest aspect the investigation into gloves which this Committee was appointed to secure.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: On that point of Order, there was a Ruling given by the Chairman yesterday that there should be a long discussion on the general policy, pledges, White Paper, and so forth, and it took place—and it occupied six hours—on the understanding that all further discussion should be confined strictly to the merits of the particular duties on the particular articles.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is quite true and is exactly what I was endeavouring to point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn).

Captain BENN: I shall confine myself to the application of the White Paper to the case of gloves, and I will not go wittingly one inch beyond that. I am going to attack the endeavour of this Committee, under the guise of safeguarding an old industry, to create a new industry. This new industry, the fabric glove industry, is aimed especially at the German fabric glove industry, and in these negotiations between the British and the German delegates which have just broken down this is a case in point. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if he did not say in these negotiations that he was prepared not to propose legislation for the creation of a new industry, such as the German fabric glove industry. If the report in the "Times" is correct, it is quite clear we are doing a thing which is directly threatening our growing and increasingly important export trade to Germany. The question shows that it must be so, that there is an import, in competition, of the same article or similar articles. In this Report it is pointed out that these gloves which come from abroad are not the same articles. High-class gloves like high-class cutlery are an especially British product and cannot be beaten by anything in the
world. It is a very high class thing and not suitable for ordinary, wide, popular consumption by people who have little money to spend. Turn to page 4, for example, of the Report on leather gloves. They do not say on page 4 that the manufacturers in this country are able to produce, or are producing a similar article, but I beg hon. Members to remember that that was the test—that there is something being made here, there is something being made abroad, and competition from abroad has killed that article here. What do they say?
The Applicants contended that their industry was highly skilled and had existed in this country for several centuries.
Going back to Julius Cæsar, like the razor.
They claimed to be able to produce any kind of glove which is now imported, provided that they were protected from unfair competition.
I am missing three lines which are not relevant to the argument.
Further, they submitted that even if all the imported gloves had been of a different type from the British, they would be substitutes for the latter.
That means that our articles are not the same. It means that these people said it is true, we are not making what the Germans are making, but if we get a duty we can make what the Germans are making. They cannot answer in the affirmative the question proposed that they are suffering from competition in articles of the same class imported from abroad. Let me come to the question of efficiency. It is no good the hon. Member below making scornful laughter; we are just as much concerned with the greatness of our commerce as he is, and we think that we have a sounder economic view than he has. I do not know whether Members have read the Report on gloves issued in 1921. In 1921 it was made quite clear that this glove industry was a small post-War industry created on the back of a totally different War industry. It was an effort to use the machinery and factories which had been made for the one thing, in a new industry. It was not very successful, and the people engaged in it would have been better to direct their efforts in the channels in which they would have achieved greater success with the natural advantages they possess. I ask hon. Gentlemen who are following the
argument to take pages 4 and 5. Page 4, paragraph 8, says at the bottom of the page:
It is no doubt true that the gloves produced by several British manufacturers up to 1919–20 were not of the same standard as that obtaining in Germany"—
that is to say not so efficient—
but this is largely accounted for by the fact that the industry had been established in Chemnitz for a long period of years, whereas the British industry developed during the time of the War.
That is no doubt an explanation and extenuation. It does not alter the fact that the committee found that there was disparity in conditions. The most they say is that they are satisfied that British manufacturers have considerably improved their products. That is the best this Committee, which is recommending a duty, can do in reply to the question: Is the industry conducted with efficiency? [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on!"]
We are satisfied, however, that British manufacturers have considerably improved their products during the past few years "—
It must have been bad before—
We are of opinion that the types of fabric gloves now produced in this country are fairly comparable in fit and finish with those at present manufactured abroad.
That is not exactly a high testimonial to efficiency. Does the hon. Member wish me to continue?
The applicants maintained that they were unable to meet Continental competition, principally on account of the lower wages
and so on. This committee with all the goodwill in the world, and all the reluctance which everyone would feel to decry any British product, does declare that they are fairly comparable, and, i hold, show some improvement. If a school report says there is improvement, it is not quite so high as the schoolmaster would wish it to go.
Let me come to the next question, namely, whether there is an abnormal import. That is very important. I repeat the question which has been put in all these cases to the Government: What do they mean by "abnormal import"? What is the definition of "abnormal import"? The words used are the same for all these committees, but the interpretation is different for
each committee. It has been said that the Minister has given instructions as to the meaning of the words "abnormal import." The right hon. Gentleman will not say that he has not given such instructions. I pause for the reply. Has he given the committees instructions?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As I told the hon. and gallant Gentleman yesterday, I have given no committee any instructions except the instructions laid down in the White Paper.

Captain BENN: That is a matter to which we will come on the Report of another committee, the Gas Mantle Committee, where special terms of reference, outside the terms of the White Paper. were laid down. The right hon. Gentleman has to assess and appraise and to determine what he will do on the reports of these committees. In his view what is the. correct interpretation of the term "abnormal import"? Does he mean imports greater than pre-War imports? Does he mean a pro-pressive increase of imports? Does he mean imports greater than the post-War imports? What does the term mean? Clearly, if you take the widest definition, as some of the committees do, and say, "If we can find one year where the import of these goods is greater than that of another year, then there is an abnormal import," there is not a single industry in the country which does not show an abnormal import within the terms of such a definition. Let us turn to page 7 of the Report. This matter has been investigated by the Gloves Committee. Let us deal first with the growth of the import in the year 1925. One of the effects of all this campaign about safeguarding, the setting up of all these semi-private committees, the small paragraph in the newspaper saying that an application had been made to the Board of Trade, a short announcement that the committee was to sit—all that has a definite effect on the foreign exporter. The moment he sees that there is to be a committee set up he says, "Well, in case they put on a duty"—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have followed the hon. and gallant Member and I cannot find that he is referring to gloves at all. He is referring rather to the general question, which has been fully discussed.

Captain BENN: I have not cited a single instance which was not taken from the Glove Report. It is perfectly true that I am illustrating the general question, but I am doing it from the Glove Report, and surely the object of the discussion of any Resolution is to see whether, in the case of the article on which it is proposed to put a tax, the general conditions are fulfilled?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That was settled yesterday in the general discussion, which included all the articles mentioned in the different Resolutions. That cannot be repeated to-day.

Mr. LANSBURY: At the beginning of this discussion yesterday, I asked your predecessor whether we could discuss the general question on a Resolution, and he said in effect, "Certainly, if that were agreed." It was agreed generally that that was what should be done. I told the Chairman distinctly that I wanted an opportunity to discuss the whole question.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the hon. Member will bear me out when I say that the point which was put to the Chairman yesterday was that I had, as was stated, quite properly opened with all the facts on the particular Resolution, and that an hon. Member should be permitted, on the Resolution, not only to speak of the rate of duty and so on, but to speak of all the relevant factors in relation to the particular proposal; but no suggestion was made that we should go beyond that, nor did I go beyond it in my speech by engaging again in a general discussion of policy.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I endorse what the last speaker has said. That was certainly the understanding reached in the discussion at the beginning of these Debates. What has been pursued by my hon. and gallant Friend I understand is this: The argument that the 1920 figures are not useful for deciding on this question, for the simple reason that, there having been a previous announcement in regard to the setting up of these Committees, foreign exporters have taken note of that fact and have rushed their goods into this country. The only thing that appeared to be lacking on the part of my hon. and gallant Friend was that he did not use the word "gloves" in
every other sentence. Every argument led up to the examination of the figures, and that was quite relevant to the ruling of yourself and your predecessor.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On the contrary, that is how the hon. and gallant Gentleman tried to get himself in order— by using the word "gloves." General policy cannot be discussed on this Motion.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not want to press the point. Am I to understand that it is not in order for my hon. and gallant Friend to make the point that publication of the notice that this Committee was to be set up had led to an abnormal import of gloves in the period before the Committee reported? That was the point I understood my hon. and gallant Friend to be making. Is that in order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to discuss the general policy of this Safeguarding of Industries Act. The only thing that is in order is to discuss whether gloves are to be included in the Resolutions or not.

Captain BENN: I assure you sincerely that I have been endeavouring to keep within the strict rules of debate, and I am trying to illustrate from the Glove Report, and from no other document, the arguments that I wish to advance against the proposition. Let me come to the question whether, in the case of gloves, there is an abnormal import. In the White Paper there is a very useful table at the foot of page 7, where are shown the percentages of total United Kingdom consumption of gloves, with the figures for British manufactures and foreign manufactures. We find that whereas in 1913 the British manufacturer enjoyed 26 per cent. of the trade in gloves, in 1924 he enjoyed 32.5 per cent. of the tra3e. How can the President of the Board of Trade, in face of those figures, contend that the foreign manufacturer is making an abnormal import? The share of the foreign manufacturer has decreased from 74 per cent. in 1913 to 67.5 per cent. in 1924. I contend, therefore, that the answer to the question put to the Glove Committee, "Has there been an abnormal import?" is that in this particular article, so far from the proportion of British manufactures having declined, it has positively advanced in the market.
Now I come to another question that was put to this Committee, namely, whether the foreign manufacturers are selling at prices lower than the prices at which the same article can be profitably manufactured in this country? I ask hon. Members to turn to page 9 of the Report. The Committee say that they have examined many types and grades of fabric and leather gloves and are of opinion—
that in the classes of goods manufactured in this country our manufacturers are meeting severe competition from comparable goods which are being sold or offered for sale at prices at which British firms cannot profitably manufacture them.
That is a categorical statement. But it is not supported by one tittle of evidence. It was not supported by the evidence of the President of the Board of Trade in his speech to-night. We cannot lay our hands on a single statement of a qualified individual in support of this conclusion. It is merely the Committee who say that they are of opinion that these gloves are coming in and are being sold at prices with which the British manufacturer cannot fairly compete. We are the Committee of Ways and Means, and if we are to impose this duty we require the evidence to be laid before us. If the President of the Board of Trade could say that the evidence was available in the Library, that might be some answer, although it might involve an abrogation of the very ancient functions of this Committee. But merely to take the unsupported testimony of three individuals who have been made members of the Glove Committee and who ask us to say that foreign goods are being sold here at prices with which our people cannot compete—though that statement may be true, it is not proved.
The next question is, whether employment in the glove industry is seriously affected? I ask hon. Gentlemen to turn to page 10 of the Report. They will find in paragraph 28 a statement as to the numbers employed. We find that whereas in 1913 there were 2,400 people employed in this industry, in 1924–25, or when the Report was issued, there were 1,800. That shows a considerable and lamentable decline of 600. Yes, but it cannot really be said that with the prevailing unemployment in this country this is an industry which you should single out.

Mr. HANNON: To provide employment for only 600 is very important.

Captain BENN: It is, indeed, extremely important, but the hon. Gentleman does not follow my argument. He, of course, is perfectly logical. He would extend this specific to all the industries of the country. He never denies it. No doubt the bulk of hon. Members opposite are of the same mind. But that is not the basis of this application to gloves. The basis of this application is that here is an industry which, even in these bad times, is much worse than the rest, and, therefore, is entitled to the duty.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman read the lines above the one he has mentioned? It states that in July, 1919, there were 10,948 employed.

Captain BENN: In 1919 there was no import at all, and the reason for that is obvious, for 1919 might almost be called a war year. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not take the figures for 1916 and 1917? I say that to the question, Is unemployment in the glove industry abnormal? according to all impartial observers the answer is in the negative. I want to come now to the question of competition from other countries. Hon. Members will see this mentioned on, page 11 of the Report. The question put to the Glove Committee was, whether exceptional competition in this industry comes largely from countries where the conditions are different? The Report purports to set out examples of conditions differing so as to render competition unfair. If hon. Members read paragraph 29 they will find a large number of statements, but they will not find, from beginning to end, one jot of evidence. They will find that the secretary to the Committee, at the bidding of the three members, has made a number of assertions, but there is not a single piece of evidence to support the assertions, and the President of the Board of Trade will not give us any evidence. He shelters himself behind these assertions, and I contend that such assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot possibly weigh with the Committee of Ways and Means which is asked to impose this duty.
I remember the duty which was put on fabric gloves in 1922, and I remember the
Report of the Committee which examined the state of the industry in 1921. They said that the industry was being affected by German imports because of the inflation of the mark. That was the gravamen of their case—that the low value of the mark created conditions with which British industry was unable to compete. It was pointed out that it was only the exclusion of gloves from Australia and the fiscal preferences of Canada which prevented the German manufacturers getting a foothold in those two markets. Now this Committee recommends the duty but not on that basis. The mark has now been stabilised, and the price of manufacture in Germany is steadily rising, leaving aside the question that the German manufacturer has to borrow capital at exorbitant rates of interest. The Committee do not mention the fact that the preferences in Australia have been still more heavily weighted in favour of the home manufacturer, and instead of that they base their case for the duty—

Mr. GREENE: Is it not the implication of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his party that Colonial Preference is quite useless to us because the preferences are not sufficient for us to get in our goods?

Captain BENN: Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to join issue with the hon. Gentleman, but of course it is obviously impossible to do so within the ruling given by the Deputy-Chairman. Although I do not in the least shirk it, I cannot at this point enter into an argument on Colonial preference. I say that, despite this increase in the Australian preference and despite the stabilisation of the mark, this committee on gloves goes back to the decision of the old committee on gloves and insists that there is a case for the duty, although they are not able to support it by any material evidence. In this case of fabric gloves we have an opportunity of examining the facts in the light of experience, because for a short period—happily terminated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer—fabric gloves did enjoy a duty, and by looking at the tables in the Report we are enabled to see what happened when that duty was enforced. Let us take figures
in paragraph 21 in relation to the duty which existed from August, 1922, to August, 1924. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are right in their contention, that duty should have done much to check the import of foreign fabric gloves. Did it? Here are the figures. The percentage of the total United Kingdom consumption enjoyed by the foreigner in 1922 was 87. After two years of the duty he had 88 per cent. Does not that show that the one experiment we have made in this direction wan a complete and dismal failure?

Mr. REMER: It only referred to one country.

Captain BENN: Yes. but everybody knows, and nobody better than the hon. Member, that in fabric gloves it was the Saxon competition which mattered, and that the Act as originally drawn covered everything which could be said to originate in Germany. Therefore, I contend that even tested by the conditions laid down by the Government and judged by the assertions of the Committee, the case for the duty absolutely fails. In this Report it is pointed out that Italy is one of the chief exporters of these gloves to this country. I regret more than ever that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his right place on the Front Bench. The right hon. Gentleman is engaged in debt negotiations with Italy. How does he suppose he is going to get his debt paid by Italy unless it comes in the form of Italian gloves or some other goods? It is idle for hon. Gentlemen to try to have it both ways. It is idle to say "We will have our foreign debts paid," and then when things like these gloves come along to say "We will not have the gloves." It is a complete confusion of thought, and hon. Members must make up their minds that they cannot reject foreign goods and have foreign debts paid. There is a further point in this Report, although it did not seem to be within the proper scope of the inquiry, and that is the question of prices. The Committee say that the price of these gloves is very high. Paragraph 29 (h) is extremely interesting because it shows that if you raise the price of these gloves by putting a duty on them, there is going to be a percentage profit on that duty as well as on the cost of the glove, at every stage of dis-
tribution. It is pointed out that the manufacturer in the first place adds the cost of the duty. The wholesale distributor puts his profit on to the cost of the article plus the cost of the duty and then the retail distributor takes the price of the glove plus the duty plus the profit of the wholesale distributor and on top of that accumulated total puts his own profit.
I must confess I am not hopeful of Government interference) in these matters, but I think more practical sense would be shown by the right hon. Gentleman if he were to say, "This Report reveals gross profiteering on this article and I propose to devise something to stop that profiteering." Then the right hon. Gentleman might be said to be doing something in the interests of the consumers. There are minor points which will arise. For instance, if a glove has a little silk in it, is a double duty to be charged? Further, what is the yield of the duty? Do hon. Members think it consistent with their self-respect to sit here as members of a Committee imposing a tax, and for the first time in history the responsible Minister does not know what the yield of the tax is going to bet If there is a little silk in a glove, is the right hon. Gentleman going to make it liable first to the silk duty on the total value of the article, and then add a 33⅓ per cent. duty on to that? If so, will it be added on to the c.i.f. value? That is what happened in connection with the German Reparation (Recovery) Act. When such a glove comes in, what is the aggregate figure on which the Customs Department will charge? These are very important questions, and they do not arise only in the ease of gloves containing a little silk. There is also the case of motor-drivers' gloves. The right hon. Gentleman cannot tell me with authority, because it is not his Department, but are not motor drivers' gloves regarded as motor accessories and liable as such to a duty of 33⅓ per cent. already? We cannot have a Treasury official here to tell us whether the gauntlet glove for the motor cyclist or the owner of a small car, is going to be subject to 33⅓ per cent. as a motor accessory, and to another 33⅓ per cent. on the price plus the first 33⅓ per cent., because it is a glove.
It is quite impossible to consent to these tinkering tariffs on twopenny-half-penny articles which are going to re-create the long list of dutiable goods swept away by this country in the early part of last century—little duties producing little revenues and causing infinite hardship to the trade of the country. Of course, it is not going to stop at gloves. Lady Askwith, who sat on the Committee, expresses the opinion that a tax having been imposed on imported silk glove fabrics, it will operate unfairly on that industry should cotton glove fabric come in free. When the Report on the paper industry comes along we shall find that the result of putting a tax on in that case will be a demand from at least 30 other industries claiming to be damaged by that duty. It is the beginning of a general tariff, and a very bad general tariff, a tariff which is merely a collection of articles—not even that which is humourously called a scientific- tariff. It will be a tariff suggested by little interests coming together for the purpose of exploiting the consumer and persuading the President of the Board of Trade, hot in open debate but in secret Committee, to propose these Measures to the House of Commons.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I have listened to this Debate all the afternoon, and as one who held no political views in pre-War days and only took an interest in polities because of the state of the country, I am filled with amazement on listening to the academic ingenuity of hon. Members opposite, which has for is sole object, as far as I can see, keeping British men out of employment. That this is, in fact, the case is fairly evident so far as the Labour party is concerned, because during a large part of the Debate there has not been a single back bench Member of that party present.

Mr. LANSBURY: There are not many of your own party.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: We have a great many more than the Labour party.

Mr. CHARLETON: Where were you last night?

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I was working on my housing scheme.

Mr. CHARLETON: We were in the House of Commons.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: That shows how stupid hon. Members were to stop here instead of going home to bed.

Mr. CHARLETON: We were looking after the interests of the unemployed.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: No. You were simply trying to obstruct Government business, and you know it. Hon. Members are well aware that all-night sittings are perfectly useless for the business of the country.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to accuse other hon. Members of obstructing public business? I have heard rulings from the Chair on that subject.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member, was going further than he ought to have gone.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I apologise if I went beyond the rules of the House, but I do feel that in the present condition of the country we should do everything to increase employment, and if. I did speak with a little bit of feeling I hope that I shall be forgiven. Let us take the whole speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn). What do we find? First he attacked the terms of reference to the Committee, then the constitution of the Committee, and then the impartiality of the Committee, but he did not once address himself to the question whether or not more persons will be employed by the imposition of this duly, whether the cost of gloves will go up, or whether the increased trade will bring revenue to the Exchequer. Every single argument he produced was one of academic economics. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are academic economics?"] Academic economics are those advocated by persons who have never had to conduct a business.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to deal with the question before the Committee, namely, gloves.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I was endeavouring to keep on the track of gloves, but I was continually interrupted. If one may turn to the question of gloves, surely there are only three questions
before this Committee to-night. We are not discussing whether or not the Safeguarding of Industries Act should have been brought into force or otherwise, but whether or not gloves should be brought under that Act, and there are three questions to be asked. The first is, will the cost of gloves to the consumer be increased or decreased by their being brought under this Act? The second question is, will more British people be employed by the imposition of this duty or not? And the third question is, will the revenue be increased or otherwise by the increase of trade? Let me deal with the first point, because many of the arguments that have been addressed to the Committee by hon. Members opposite have been based on the assumption that the price of goods will be increased. I entirely disagree, and I would like to give some actual figures. I will take the figures from the speeches of hon. Members opposite. Supposing we take a. pair of gloves costing the manufacturer 5s. to produce. Hon. Members opposite have told us that the retail price is at least 100 per cent. more than the wholesale price, and, therefore, that pair of gloves we are considering would not be sold under 10s.; but the duty is levied upon the manufacturing cost, and not upon the retail cost, and, therefore, the increase in the price of those gloves, other things being equal, would be. 1s. 8d.
There is another factor to be brought in, namely, that the charges are not entirely for labour. Where machinery is employed in a large degree, the overhead charges are greatly in excess of labour costs, and, therefore, if there is an increase in output, and those overhead charges are reduced by an amount greater than the duty imposed, the cost to the consumer is bound to be less with the imposition of that duty than it would be without the imposition of that duty, for the simple reason that output has gone up, and therefore the cost of production has gone down. That is amply illustrated in this very question of gloves. America put an import duty on gloves, and continued to increase that duty, with the result that two firms were able so to increase their output that they actually attracted the men from this country who were put out of work here by the competition of those factories, and went to America, with the result that they took the whole of the export trade
from us. I see the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, and I would suggest to him that that is what will always happen with any industry which is protected, and which is capable of the application of mass methods of manufacture, because if the article be protected, the output is increased, and the overhead charges come down to such a degree that it matters very little what the wages are. Let me take one or two examples without going outside the limits of the Debate. I believe Mr. Morris is paying his men something like £7 a week. That is one example of the fact that the cost of labour does not very much matter when you get real mass production. Take another case in which I happen to know the figures are accurate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is going too much into general policy.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I was endeavouring to prove that if the cost of labour were to go up, the actual cost of the gloves would be less, but as I cannot pursue that argument in any detail, I think it can be proved without doubt that if the output be increased by 50 per cent., the overhead charges will fall by an amount more than sufficient to compensate for the duty, and the result will therefore be, that in so far as cost is concerned, the gloves will be produced and sold to the consumer at a cheaper price with the duty on than without it, for the simple reason that the reduction of overhead charges goes to our factories instead of to the foreign factories. With regard to the question of labour, surely if we increase our output by 50 or more per cent., it is quite certain we shall employ more labour. The third point is, shall we obtain more revenue for the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the imposing of these duties? I submit that we shall obtain that increased revenue on three grounds, the first by whatever imports may be levied on the goods which still come to this country. Further, we shall obtain it by the increased Income Tax and Super-tax levied upon the shareholders and the manufacturers, and we shall obtain it by the increased Income Tax which is paid by the extra workmen who are employed, [An HON. MEMBER: "Who pays it?"] They pay it if they get high enough wages.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is an argument concerning a general tariff. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will confine himself to the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I will endeavour to keep entirely to the question of gloves. Therefore, on the three questions which we have asked ourselves, if this duty be put on gloves, namely, will the cost go up or down, we can answer quite definitely that the cost to the consumer will go down; we can answer, secondly, that we shall employ more British persons in the industry; and, thirdly, that the revenue of the State will be increased. Therefore we have only to consider as ancillary matters to these three major issues as to what is the extent of the market which is open to us, and we see from the figures in the White Paper that we are to-day producing, approximately, one-third of the total quantity of the articles required. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) stated that the duty would not, in fact, touch the essential reason of the contraction of the glove trade, which was the reduced purchasing power of people in this country. But what I suggest to him is that it will touch the essential factor of the glove trade in this country, because if there is only a certain market to be obtained, the higher the proportion of the market that the British industry can obtain, the better will British industry be able to overcome those difficulties, which, otherwise, it would be unable to overcome. I do not think it can be argued, that because the industry as a whole is contracted, we in this House should not take such steps as we may to ensure that, in so far as the British market is concerned, the British manufacturer should obtain whatever remains of that contracted industry. For that reason, the fact that the industry is contracting is only one more ground why this duty should be imposed. If we turn to the question of exports, we shall again find that as the cost of production will be reduced owing to decreased overhead charges, we shall be enabled to regain that export trade which we have lost. It is on these grounds that I do hope the Committee will not be guided by pre-War theories as to what the various parties should support in regard to tariffs. Surely what we in this House
want to do is to try to put more persons into employment if we can do it without affecting the consumer. I submit the consumer will be assisted and not hurt by this duty, and I sincerely hope the party opposite will sink their prejudices and support the Government in these Resolutions.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I think we have all listened with great interest to the very sincere speech of the hon. and gallant Member and his examination into what he would call "practical economics," but which, I am afraid, has convinced me of the superiority of what he calls "academic economics." I do not wish to follow his arguments in detail; they seem to be based on a series of assumptions which would take me too long to analyse in detail. I would, however, like to refer to the Report itself, because I understand the Government base their case entirely on this document. With a simple and pathetic faith in documents of this kind, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to swallow them whole. I find some difficulties. It is proposed to protect leather and fabric gloves, but not to protect glove fabrics. The first Order which was issued under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1922, did protect both fabric gloves and glove fabrics. I am now placed in this position. I do not see that the economic situation with regard to glove fabrics has changed any more than that with regard to fabric gloves, and if in 1922 it was right to protect glove fabrics, yon cannot say that they should not be protected to-day. But there is this difficulty always in these matters: They depend very much on the mood and temper of the people who happen to be inquiring into the question. It is just possible that, if there were another Committee next year, it might recommend that glove fabrics should be protected, and the lady who signed the reservation to the Report was quite right in suggesting that the matter could not be allowed to rest where it was.
The facts, so far as they are adduced in the Report, show that, whatever the reason, there is a restricted national consumption of gloves, and that there is a restricted foreign market. If these two
facts be stated correctly I do not see how it follows that any kind of expansion of the home or foreign market will follow from the imposition of these duties. On the contrary, it might be shown that the market might be further restricted. It is impossible for the trade to expand its home market, which is admittedly the root of the trouble from which it is suffering, by any plan which will make gloves more expensive.
The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) suggested that the price of gloves might be less, but the whole immediate object is to raise the price of gloves to the British consumer. It was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) that the conclusions of the Committee are not supported by evidence. That, I think, is true. One sees that particularly in paragraph 29, dealing with foreign competition. It says first, that one of the reasons why competition should be regarded as unfair is because of low wages in most of the competing countries. For example, Germany, Italy, Belgium and France. Will the President of the Board of Trade give the Committee the rate of wages of the different grades of workers in the fabric glove and leather glove industries in those four countries, and put the wages of English workpeople side by side with them, and will he go back to pre-War days and give us the rates of wages of glove workers in this country and those four countries? I ask that, be ause I think the Committee is entitled to that information. It might have been given in the Appendix to the Report.
Frankly, I do not believe in this argument. It is true that, before the War, wages in most manufacturing industries in those countries were below the wages paid to equivalent grades of labour in this country. That was at a time when there was very little outcry for Protection. If, in the interval, wages have increased in those countries to the same extent as they have in this country, British manufacturers, on that ground, have no cause for complaint, and I am convinced that, in a number of industries allied with the fabric glove industry in Germany and France, the increase in the rate of wages of labour in the past 10 years has been greater than it has been in this country, and it is absurd therefore to attempt to take currencies which are
more or less artificial and translate the wages into sterling, which make them look as if they are less per week, when the only fair ground of comparison is over a period of years to see to what extent wages have increased.
If it be true that wages in this country have increased more since the beginning of the War than in those countries which have been specified, to that extent manufacturers here would have a case, but, with no information to go upon, the Committee is unable to come to any decision as to how far that particular argument is a fair one or not. I make no complaint about the Committee. I am. sure that it acted according to its rights, but I do think that in paragraph 29 it does show an unwillingness to put all the facts. For example, take the question of depreciated exchanges. On that point I understand that at least nine-tenths of the yarn used in the manufacture of fabric gloves is manufactured in Lancashire, and most of it is exported to the other countries. It may be true that a depreciated exchange acts as a bounty upon the export of manufactured articles, but a depreciated exchange acts in precisely a contrary direction as regards the import of raw materials, and while a depreciated exchange may be an asset to a country for exporting goods it is a hindrance to its trade when it wishes to import goods, and yet nine-tenths of the raw material of these fabric gloves comes from this country and depreciated exchanges to that extent do not help the foreign fabric glove industry.
I am sorry if the Parliamentary Secretary thinks this strange economics. I should have thought that it was an accepted doctrine of economics that depreciated exchange is a bounty on exports, and a hindrance to imports. I will leave it at that, and the hon. Gentleman may reflect on it a little longer. Then reference is made to hours of labour. I see that very little evidence was given in support of that point. The only reference is that in Germany the hours of labour are longer than in this country, but they do not say what the difference is. It may be that there is a difference between the hours worked in this country and those worked in other countries. How is that problem going to be modified by the imposition of a tariff upon goods
coming from those countries? I conceive that if a tariff is put on, the foreign manufacturer, anxious to maintain the market, may increase the hours of labour further, and workers in this country will be met by employers with the argument that therefore hours should be increased here. But if our Government are anxious to meet this difficulty of varying hours of labour in different countries one very simple and effective way of doing it would be to ratify the Washington Hours Convention, and then to persuade other countries to do the same. This tariff proposal will not succeed in achieving that object.
The fabric glove industry, it seems to me, is condemned in this Report. It is said that the German industry is an industry of long standing, which is very efficient. I think that it is true in recent years that the industry in this country has improved, as the Report points out; but it is quite clear that while, with every desire not to let the trade down, the Committee has stretched its words, it does not admit, and cannot admit, that the goods imported into this country and the goods produced at home are of the same quality. It is implied, in two places in the Report, that the British article is inferior to the imported commodity. What, therefore, we are asked to do is to subsidise an industry which is producing an inferior article, to enable it to put up its price beyond the price at which the superior article can be obtained. It is significant that the Committee referred to the cost of distribution. Many hon. Members opposite—

Mr. LANSBURY: Where are they?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is a great weakness of the economic system—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. GREENWOOD: There is an interesting section in this Report dealing with the cost of distribution. On that I think that we shall carry many hon. Members on the other side with us. Instances are given of the manufacturers' selling price being doubled by the time that the article—fabric gloves—reached the consumer, That is a problem that we ought to have considered by the Government, but none
of us on this side of the House see how the cost of distribution would be reduced by the imposition of a duty. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last suggested that the whole of the cost of the duties would not come on the price. My view is that a pair of gloves, where the manufacturer's price is now 5s. and the retail price 10s., will become 6s. 8d. by the addition of the duty and 13s. 4d. in the retailers' stores, because, of course, the retailer insists, if he can get it, on 100 per cent, profit, and as the manufactured article goes through the hands of middlemen—

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: The import duty is paid by the foreigner. There is no duty on British gloves, and therefore the price will not be increased. The price of foreign gloves is merely increased by the import duty, but the British gloves are not increased by the import duty at all.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I wish the hon. and gallant Member were right, but I should imagine it is a part of the motive behind the Government in bringing this Resolution forward to make the industry prosperous, to enable it to pay higher wages. It, therefore, needs more money,

and will get it by higher prices. I should say that the manufacturers would be more than human if they did not take advantage of the duty imposed on the foreign article to increase the price of the home article, and in either case, whether we are dealing with foreign gloves or British gloves, it is quite clear that the 33⅓ per cent. duty will be increased proportionately by the addition of retailers' charges. We would suggest that the way of dealing with this question is not by way of a tariff duty. I think those who have read this Report carefully will agree with the criticism that has been put forward that the case has not been proved, and that the Committee has not furnished this House with the information necessary for it to form a judgment on the merits of the case.

Several HON. MEMBERS: having risen,

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 131.

Division No. 454.]
AYES.
[8.18 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Gilmour Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. sir John


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Albery, Irving James
Clarry, Reginald George
Gower, sir Robert


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cobb. Sir Cyril
Grace, John


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Apsley, Lord
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Atholl, Duchess of
Cope, Major William
Grotrian, H. Brent


Atkinson, C.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gunston, Captain D. w.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hammersley, S. S.


Barnston, Major sir Harry
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bethell, A.
Drewe, C.
Hartington, Marquess of


Betterton, Henry B.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Haslam, Henry C.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hawke, John Anthony


Blundell, F. N.
Elveden, Viscount
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fielden, E. B.
Holt, Captain H. P.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Finburgh, S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Fleming, D. P.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Frece, Sir Walter de
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)


Campbell, E. T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Cassels, J. D.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gates, Percy
Huntingfield, Lord


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gee. Captain R.
Hurd, Percy A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Gibbs, Col, Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Hurst, Gerald B.


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Skelton, A. N.


Inskip, sir Thomas Walker H.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Jacob, A. E.
Neville, R. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Jephcott, A. R.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Nuttall, Ellis
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pease, William Edwin
Storry Deans, R.


Lamb, J. Q.
Pennefather, Sir John
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Penny, Frederick George
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Perring, William George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Pilcher, G.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Templeton, W. P.


Loder, J. de V.
Preston, William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Looker, Herbert William
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Radford, E. A.
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


Lougher, L.
Ramsden, E.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lumley, L. R.
Remer, J. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Remnant, Sir James
Warner, Brigadier-General w. w.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Watts, Dr. T.


Macintyre, I.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wells. S. R.


McLean, Major A.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Macquisten, F. A.
Rye F. G.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Salmon, Major I.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Malone, Major P. B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Margesson, Captain D.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Merriman, F. B.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sandon, Lord
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Savery, S. S.



Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Viscount Curzon.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, Walter
Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton, James


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smillie, Robert


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snell, Harry


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S.
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Livingstone, A. M.
Townend, A. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Crawfurd, H. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Warne, G. H.


Dennison, R.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duckworth, John
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Montague, Frederick
Westwood, J.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Forrest, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.



Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Trevelyan Thomson and Sir


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Godfrey Collins.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. F. C. THOMSON and Captain Viscount CURZON were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. LANSBUEY and Mr. BUCHANAN Tellers for the Noes. But, on the Tellers coining to the Table, it appeared that Sir GODFREY COLLINS and Mr. LANSRURY had acted as Tellers for the Noes.

The CHAIRMAN: I received the names of certain Tellers in this Division—the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). Other Tellers appear at the Table. Under these circumstances I can only hold that these Tellers have not been authorised—at least, one of them has not. The Tellers will withdraw and resume their seats.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I feel that a personal explanation is due to the Committee and to you, Mr. Chairman, for my action a few minutes ago. An hour or so ago I handed in at the Table my name and the name of a colleague to tell on this Amendment, and therefore thought that when the Division was called my hon. Friend and myself would be Tellers. It is through no lack of respect for my hon. Friends above the Gangway that I acted in the way I have done. If I have contravened the Rules of the House I apologise. I thought what I was doing was in keeping with my action an hour ago on an Amendment which was on the Paper, and that I should be entitled to tell as I have done.

Mr. BUCHANAN: As I have been involved in this, may I also say a word in personal explanation? I understood no names had been handed in to tell; and if no names had been handed in the Division would have been declared void. There having been no names before you at the time, I took the opportunity, because I wanted a Division, to hand in the name of my colleague, the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and myself. I understood those were the only two that were notified to you to act as Tellers. I retired from the door on understanding from the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) that the thing had been adjusted. Not being used to acting as a Teller, I did it, I am afraid, rather innocently. I hope that nothing I have done reflects on the conduct of my colleagues.

Mr. LANSBURY: In order to clear my character, and to repudiate the cries of "Coalition," I want to say that I consented to act as a Teller to save, as I thought, the situation. Apparently, I have added to the gaiety of the House, and I am very pleased, indeed.

The CHAIRMAN: I can only say that all parties to this episode emerge from it with unblemished characters. A mistake has been made. Tellers can only be named and accepted after a Division has been called, and therefore I must put the Question again.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 127.

Division No. 455.]
AYES.
[8.39 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Albery, Irving James
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Apsley, Lord
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Dalziel, Sir Davison


Atholl, Duchess of
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Atkinson, C.
Caine, Gordon Hall
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Campbell, E. T.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cassels, J. D.
Drewe, C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Elliott, Captain Walter E.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Chapman, Sir S.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Bethell, A.
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Betterton, Henry B.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Clarry, Reginald George
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Blundell, F. N.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Finburgh, S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cope, Major William
Fleming, D. P.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Frece, Sir Walter de
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lamb, J.O.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Rye, F. G.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Salmon, Major I.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Gates, Percy
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Gee, Captain R.
Locker- Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Loder, J. de V.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Looker, Herbert William
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Sandon, Lord


Gower, Sir Robert
Lougher, L.
Savery, S. S.


Grace, John
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lumley, L. R.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Skelton, A. N.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McLean, Major A.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Smithers, Waldron


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Malone, Major p. B.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hammersley, S. S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Margesson, Captain D.
Storry Deans, R.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Merriman, F. B.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hartington, Marquess of
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Haslam, Henry C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hawke, John Anthony
Mitchell, Sir W. Line (Streatham)
Templeton, W. P.


Henderson, Capt. R-R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Morrison-Bell Sir Arthur Clive
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Neville R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nuttall, Ellis
Wells, S. R.


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pease William Edwin
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberf'nd, Whiteh'n)
Pennefather, Sir John
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Penny Frederick George
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Perring, William George
Wise, Sir Fredric


Huntingfield, Lord
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Womersley, W. J.


Hurd, Percy A.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Preston, William
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midi'n & P'bl's)
price, Major C. W. M.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Radford E A



Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Ramsden, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jacob, A. E.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Jephcott, A. R.
Remer, J. R.
Viscount Curzon.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rice, Sir Frederick



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dunnico, H.
Kelly, W. T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield. Hillsbro')
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kennedy, T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Kirkwood, D.


Baker, Walter
Fenby, T. D.
Lansbury, George


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Forrest, W.
Lawson, John James


Barnes, A.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lee, F.


Barr, J.
Gosling, Harry
Lindley, F. W.


Batey, Joseph
Greenall, T.
Livingstone, A. M.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lowth, T.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Groves, T.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Broad, F. A.
Grundy, T. W.
Mackinder, W.


Bromfield, William
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
MacLaren, Andrew


Bromley, J.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Brawn, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
March. S.


Buchanan, G.
Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Cape, Thomas
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Montague, Frederick


Charleton, H. C.
Hardle, George D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Clowes, S.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Murnin, H.


Cluse, W. S.
Hayday, Arthur
Naylor, T. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hayes, John Henry
Oliver, George Harold


Compton, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Palin, John Henry


Connolly, M.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Paling, W.


Cove, W. G.
Hirst, G H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Dalton, Hugh
Hopkinson, A (Lancaster, Mossley)
Potts, John S.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Day, Colonel Harry
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.


Dennison, R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks. W. R., Elland)


Duckworth, John
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter




Saklatvala, Shapurji
Taylor, R. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Scrymgeour, E.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Westwood, J.


Scurr, John
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Whiteley, W.


Sexton, James
Thurtle, E.
Wiggins, William Martin


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smillie, Robert
Townend, A. E.
Wilson, H. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Windsor, Walter


Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Varley, Frank B.
Wright, W.


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Viant, S. P.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Snell, Harry
Wallhead, Richard C.



Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stamford, T. W.
Warne, G. H.
Sir Godfrey Collins and Mr.


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Trevelyan Thomson.


Sutton, J. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. O. (Rhondda)

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: May I ask you, Mr. Chairman, for the information of the Committee on future occasions, whether it is not the case that the Ayes, having properly appointed their Tellers in the Division which has just been declared off. have the right to claim the Question without a Division?

The CHAIRMAN: I think not, because the Tellers for the Noes had been duly appointed, but other gentlemen had quite unconsciously usurped their places.

Mr. HERBERT: I submit that the Tellers duly appointed did not tell, and therefore there were no votes for the Noes.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that suggestion does great credit to the hon. Member's ingenuity, but I cannot agree with it.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Supposing this error happened two or three times, would that mean that there is no limit to the number of Divisions on the Question?

The CHAIRMAN: I never seek to meet trouble half-way. The next Amendment I select is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander).

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Are we to have no discussion of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett), to leave out "33⅓" and to insert "5"? I submit that in Committee of Ways and Means a proposal for the reduction of a duty is one of the most important that can be put from the Chair. I should like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, under what Rule you pass over this Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: I have more than one thing to say about that. In the first place, I have an absolute right of selection; in the second place, this is an
enabling and not an enacting Resolution; and, in the third place, the Motion to reduce the duty to 5 per cent. would practically mean a negative of the whole Resolution. I am quite willing to waive my right of selection if any of the hon. Members whose names are down to this Amendment will say that they are seriously desirous of imposing a duty of 5 per cent.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I respectfully press you, Mr. Chairman, to allow this Amendment to be moved. I would like to put one or two considerations. In the first place, you have in the Amendment at the top of page 3565 of the Order Paper, two Amendments relating to the period of time. The second Amendment, to which my name is attached, relates to the financial question, and lower down the Amendments refer to the articles concerned in the resolution. If you rule out the Amendment standing in my name, we cannot discuss the financial provision, and that is a very important question.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will give me the explicit assurance which I have asked for, then I am prepared to waive my right of selection.

Mr. DAVIES: I will do that with pleasure.

The CHAIRMAN: Then I may take it that the hon. Member seriously wishes that there shall be a 5 per cent. duty on imported gloves.

Mr. DAVIES: I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that those who have attached their names to this Amendment seriously desire a discussion upon it.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that does not satisfy my condition.

Captain BENN: This Resolution proposes to impose a duty of 33⅓ per cent., and I desire to give reasons why it should be 5 per cent.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not gather that the hon. and gallant Member says that he wishes to impose such a duty.

Captain BENN: Do I understand that it is within the province of the Chair to invite professions of fiscal opinion?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not say that, but it is within the province of the Chair to select Amendments without giving reasons.

Captain BENN: Then I will give shortly my reasons for supporting this Amendment as it stands on the Paper.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not the point. The hon. and gallant Member may give a short explanation, but it rests with me whether I accept it or not.

Captain BENN: I know you have a right, Mr. Chairman, to permit us to make a statement or to decide the question without a statement. Some of these duties now being proposed are to be imposed on articles which are already dutiable, and if we impose this 33⅓ per cent. which is now proposed, the aggregate on some articles might amount to 66⅔ per cent. We have devised an Amendment which will cover this point. Motor accessories, gloves and silk content would be subject to this double duty, and consequently it is of the first importance, and for these reasons I submit that we should be allowed to discuss this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I will give full weight to the hon. and gallant Member's considerations if he will put down a similar Amendment when the Bill is before the House in Committee.

Mr. ALEXANDER: On a point of Order. Do you not think, on reflection, that it is only—I do not want to use a wrong word—that it is only fair to the House that we should have the opportunity, in dealing with the enabling Resolution on which a Finance Bill will be framed, of voting specifically in such a way as will limit the scope of the Finance Bill upon this particular duty? It seems to me, from my short experience of the House, that we have always had the right, on previous Ways and Means Resolutions, to take a vote of the Committee in order to limit as far as we can the scope of the
Finance Bill which is to follow. We shall not have that privilege if your ruling is adhered to.

The CHAIRMAN: Many Amendments of greater or less importance may be put down, but, on the first stage of a Measure like this, as it is only an enabling Resolution, I feel less inclined to allow unlimited scope than if it were an enacting Resolution.

Captain BENN: May I put to you a contingency which, if it arose—I do not say that it will—would, in view of your ruling, rob Members of the Ways and Means Committee of their rights? Supposing that the Government, having carried this Resolution for a duty of 33⅓ per cent., and you having ruled that an Amendment to reduce the duty to 5 per cent. was not one that you would select, and if, then, the Government introduced a Bill which only imposed a duty of 4 per cent., you will observe that then we should have been robbed of the opportunity of discussing the smaller duty, as we have on this occasion.

The CHAIRMAN: I can hardly imagine a case in which a Government, having taken such wide powers, would content itself with so very moderate an exercise of them.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Might I put this point to you, Mr. Hope? This appears to me to be a very important precedent, which may affect the procedure in Committee of Ways and Means in future years. The proposal on the Paper, as I understand it, certainly in so far as I was responsible in putting my name to it, was not that I wished to have a duty of 5 per cent. Indeed, I am not sure whether the Government wish to have a duty of 33⅓ per cent. All that they ask in this Resolution is that they should have authority from the Committee of Ways and Means to impose in their Finance Bill a duty not exceeding 33⅓ per cent. That I understand to be the meaning of the Resolution. The desire that I had was to limit the discretion of the Government, not to 33⅓ per cent., but to 5 per cent. I wished to deprive them of discretion to the extent of 28 per cent. That was my object. I should like to know whether, in the future procedings of the Committee of Ways and Means, you would regard a
Motion of that kind, limiting the discretion of the Government, as being a Motion not important enough to be selected by you.

The CHAIRMAN: It all depends on the circumstances—on the terms of the Motion and all the surrounding conditions; and, having given full attention to all of these, I think that there are other Amendments which are more important, and my decision will not in the least prejudice the Committee on the Bill.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, to leave out lines 5 to 7 inclusive.
I desire to leave out the words
Gloves made in whole or in part of leather or of fur, and leather or fur cut out ready for sewing into gloves, but not including gloves known as astrakhan gloves or gloves in which leather is used only as trimming or binding.
9.0 P.M.
The first thing I want to say about this Amendment is that the leather gloves referred to in this part of the Resolution are a very large part of the total sales of gloves in this country, and I say quite frankly that I am very interested in what the position will be as regards the shops and the people of this country as the result of the imposition of this duty. The movement with which I am connected forms part of the retail trade of the country, and they have always found that, whenever duties of this kind are placed upon a particular article, they are bound to pass the duty on to the consumer; and there is not the slightest doubt that as a result of the inclusion of these articles in this Resolution and in the Finance Bill there will be a very serious increase in the charge to the users of these articles. That is the first ground of my objection to the inclusion of these articles in the Resolution. In the second place, I object to their inclusion because, having read the Report of the Committee, I do not feel that the conditions of the White Paper have been satisfied in the case of these particular kinds of gloves—leather gloves, fur gloves, and so on. As has often been pointed out in the course of our Debates on these Resolutions, one of the things that the White Paper lays down in its rules of procedure is that the industry which seeks protection under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure must be able to show that there are abnormal
imports. I take the Report of the Committee itself, and I find that, although of course there is a considerable amount to be said for the view of the Committee with regard to the increase in imports during the last four or five years, yet in 1924 the number of dozen pairs of leather gloves imported was only 901,221, as compared with 1,463,943 in 1913. Therefore, in 1924 the imports were something like half a million dozen pairs less than they were in 1913, and it is difficult to understand why it is suggested that there is abnormality in the imports of this particular kind of gloves.
There is another point on which I should like to have a word from the Government. The words which I am seeking to delete from the Resolution include, I notice, fur gloves. I have read the Report of the Committee very carefully, and I cannot find that they make any reference to fur gloves at all. Could we ask whether any request was made by the special manufacturers of fur gloves, if there are special manufacturers, for inclusion in the duty? I put that point specifically because in the Debate yesterday on another Resolution, on our asking why certain action was not taken on the recommendation of the Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary replied: "The people concerned did not ask for it, and that is that." I would ask him, did the people concerned ask for a duty on fur gloves? If not, why is the action of the Government in including fur gloves so different from their attitude on the other duty with regard to which the Parliamentary Secretary answered last night? I should like to have specific information on that point.
Another to which I want to draw attention with regard to these imports which it is sought to restrain is that although since 1920, as I have already pointed out, there has been a considerable increase in the imports of gloves—they have increased from 259,000 in 1920 to 901,000 in 1924—there has been a far less marked increase in the value of the gloves imported. I think it is generally well known that the leather gloves manufactured by the British industry are always of a somewhat better quality and are sold at a higher price than those which are imported, and the values which are expressed in the figures I have just mentioned, as compared with the imports,
would seem to show, ipso facto, that these goods are not comparable with the goods that it is sought to protect by these duties. That is another reason why we should ask the Government not to include this particular kind of gloves, because it has not satisfied one of the conditions laid down in the White Paper, that there roust be a serious difference in price on a comparable article. I think the position is quite clear that the gloves which it is sought to keep out are not comparable with the British article, and that therefore the duty ought not to be imposed.
Then I am not satisfied that when this duty of 33⅓ per cent. is placed on gloves the Government will also take proper steps to protect the consumer. I mentioned just now that the increased price would be charged to the consumer. Of the trades in the country to-day probably none is more flourishing than the distributive trade, especially in the large London stores, and I have not the slightest doubt that in respect of leather gloves, for which there is a great demand, the great stores will be able to make a very much larger margin of profit out of the consumer on the increased amount of turnover. There has been no indication yet from the Board of Trade that they are prepared to take adequate steps to protect the consumer from any undue charges made as the result of the imposition of the duty under the procedure which has been laid down by the Board of Trade. For that reason I should want to omit these particular articles from the Resolution in the absence of any statement from the Government as to the steps they will take adequately to protect the consumer. I mention that especially because I notice in a pamphlet—

I agree I have not a very authentic basis for it—which has been circulated on the Safeguarding of Industries that the statement is attributed to the President of the Board of Trade that the Board of Trade is not concerned with merchants' profits. I think that is a rather serious position. If the Board of Trade are going to impose duties for the benefit prima facie of producers, and those duties enable a larger profit to be made out of the consumers, it is a very great pity that we should have a public announcement from the Board of Trade that they are not concerned with merchants' profits, although apparently they will be able to give protection to the actual producers of the commodity on which the duty is proposed.

The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter that is relevant to any one of these duties. The sole question now is whether this description of gloves should come under the duty or not. The hon. Member's argument would really apply to the price of any article under any duty similar to that which is now proposed. It is an argument for a general discussion.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I accept that at once. I was concerned to move this Amendment because of the position of the user of leather gloves. I know something about the extent of the trade in the country. But in view of what you say I will not pursue that point except that it will be a further ground of my objection to the inclusion of these lines of gloves in the Resolution.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 126.

Division No. 456.]
AYES.
[9.10 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boothby. R. J. G.
Chapman, Sir S.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Albery, Irving James
Sowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Clarry, Reginald George


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Apsley, Lord
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cope, Major William


Atkinson, C.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bullock, Captain M.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Caine, Gordon Hall
Crookshank, Col. c. de W. (Berwick)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Campbell, E. T.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cassels, J. D.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.


Bethell, A.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Betterton, Henry B.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Drewe, C.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Blundell, F. N.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Jacob, A. E.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Jephcott, A. R.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Everard, W. Lindsay
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rye, F. G.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lamb, J. Q.
Salmon, Major I.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Finburgh, S.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fleming, D. P.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Loder, J. de V.
Savery, S. S.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Looker, Herbert William
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfres W)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Ganzoni, sir John
Lougher, L.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Gates, Percy
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Skelton, A. N.


Gee, Captain R.
Lumley, L. R.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I.of W.)
Smithers, Waldron


Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Grace, John
Macintyre, Ian
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McLean, Major A.
Storry Deans, R.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Grotrian, H Brent
Macquisten, F. A.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Gunston, Captain D. w.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Malone, Major P. B.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Manningham-Buller, sir Mervyn
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hammersley, S. S.
Merriman, F. B.
Templeton, W. P.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hartington, Marquess of
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Haslam, Henry C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Hawke, John Anthony
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Neville, R. J.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nuttall, Ellis
Wells, S. R.


Holt, Captain H. P.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pease, William Edwin
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Pennefather, Sir John
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Perring, William George
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hudson, Capt. A.U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n)
Pielou, D. P.
Womersley, W. J.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Preston, William
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Huntingfield, Lord
Price, Major C. W. M.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hurd, Percy A.
Radford, E. A.



Hurst, Gerald B.
Ramsden, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midi'n & P'bl's)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Lord Stanley and Captain


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Remer, J. R.
Margesson.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rice, Sir Frederick



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Day, Colonel Harry
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Dennison, R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Duckworth, John
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Baker, Walter
Dunnico, H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Barr, J.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Kelly, W.T.


Batey, Joseph
Fenby, T. D.
Kennedy, T.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Forrest, W.
Kirkwood, D.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gillett, George M.
Lansbury, George


Broad, F. A.
Gosling, Harry
Lawson, John James


Bromfield, William
Greenall, J
Lee, F.


Bromley, J.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lindley, F. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Livingstone, A. M.


Buchanan, G.
Groves, T.
Lowth, T.


Cape, Thomas
Grundy, T. W.
Lunn, William


Charleton, H. C
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Clowes, S.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Mackinder, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Halt, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
March, S.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Compton, Joseph
Hurdle, George D.
Montague, Frederick


Connolly, M.
Hartthorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cove, w. G.
Heyday, Arthur
Murnin, H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Oliver, George Harold


Dalton, Hugh
Hirst, G. H.
Palin, John Henry


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Paling, W. 




Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Snell, Harry
Warne, G. H.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Potts, John S.
Stamford, T. W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. O. (Rhondda)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Ritson, J.
Sutton, J. E.
Weir, L. M.


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Taylor, R. A.
Westwood, J.


Saklatvala, Shapurji
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Whiteley, W.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Wiggins, William Martin


Scrymgeour, E.
Thurtle, E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Scurr, John
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sexton, James
Townend, A. E.
Windsor, Walter


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C P.
Wright, W.


Smillie, Robert
Varley, Frank B.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Viant, S. P.



Smith. H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wallhead, Richard C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.

IRELAND.

TERMS OF AGREEMENT.

PRIME MINISTER'S ANNOUNCEMENT.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I understand that the Prime Minister wishes to make a communication to the House regarding what has been done in connection with Ireland to-day. In order to enable him to do so, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I think it only right to take the earliest opportunity of communicating to the House the exact terms of the Agreement which was signed just an hour ago by representatives of this Government, of the Irish Free State Government and of the Government of Northern Ireland.
AGREEMENT amending and supplementing the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland to which the force of law was given by the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, and by the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) Act, 1922.
WHEREAS on the sixth day of December nineteen hundred and twenty-one Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland were entered into:
AND WHEREAS the said Articles of Agreement were duly ratified and given the force of law by the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, and by the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) Act, 1922:
AND WHEREAS the progress of events and the improved relations now subsisting between the British Government, the Government of the Irish Free State, and the Government of Northern Ireland, and their respective peoples, make it desirable to amend and supplement the said Articles of Agreement, so as to avoid any causes of friction which might mar or retard the further growth of friendly relations between the said Governments and peoples:
AND WHEREAS the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State being united in amity in this undertaking with the Government of Northern Ireland, and being resolved mutually to aid one another in a spirit of neighbourly comradeship, hereby agree as follows:

1. The powers conferred by the proviso to Article XII of the said Articles of Agreement on the Commission therein mentioned are hereby revoked, and the extent of Northern Ireland for the purposes of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and of the said Articles of Agreement, shall be such as was fixed by Sub-section (2) of Section one of that Act.
2. The Irish Free State is hereby-released from the obligation under Article V of the said Articles of Agreement to assume the liability therein mentioned.
3. The Irish Free State hereby assumes all liability undertaken by the British Government in respect of malicious damage done since the twenty-first day of January, nineteen hundred
2657
and nineteen, to property in the area now under the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State, and the Government of the Irish Free State shall repay to the British Government, at such time or times and in such manner as may be agreed upon, moneys already paid by the British Government in respect of such damage, or liable to be so paid under obligations already incurred.
4. The Government of the Irish Free State hereby agrees to promote legislation increasing by ten per cent. the measure of compensation under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, in respect of malicious damage to property done in the area now under the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State between the eleventh day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty one, and the twelfth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and providing for the payment of such additional compensation by the issue of Five per cent. Compensation Stock or Bonds.
5. The powers in relation to Northern Ireland which by the Government of Ireland Act, 1020, are made powers of the Council of Ireland, shall be and are hereby transferred to and shall become powers of the Parliament and the Government of Northern Ireland; and the Governments of the Irish Free State and of Northern Ireland shall meet together as and when necessary for the purpose of considering matters of common interest arising out of or connected with the exercise and administration of the said powers.
This Agreement is subject to confirmation by the British Parliament and by the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State, and the Act of the British Parliament confirming this Agreement shall fix the date as from which the transfer of the powers of the Council of Ireland under this Agreement is to take effect.
Dated this 3rd day of December, 1925.
The Agreement is signed on behalf of the British Government by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for India, the Secretary of State for the Colonies and myself.
Signed on behalf of the Government of the Irish Free State by Mr. Cosgrave, President, Mr. O'Higgins and Mr. Blythe.
Signed on behalf of the Government of Northern Ireland by Sir James Craig and Mr. Blackmore, Secretary of the Cabinet of the Government of Northern Ireland.
I will only add that legislation will be necessary, and I hope it may be possible to pass that legislation as speedily as possible before we rise. I cannot say more at the moment. I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to make this statement.

Mr. MacDONALD: I assume that it is the desire of the House to take the Prime Minister's statement as an intimation, and that they will now allow me to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Member must allow me to put the Motion. Is it the pleasure of the House that the Motion be withdrawn? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" "Runciman!"]

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I only wish to say a few sentences. In the first place, the details of the Agreement are, obviously, of great importance, and no doubt the House would wish to examine them at their- leisure, but I should like to say that I feel quite sure the Agreement which has been reached between the British Government, the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of the Irish Free State will have been heard with relief and pleasure by the whole of the English-speaking world.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, to leave out lines 8 to line 10 inclusive.
Broadly, the purpose of this Amendment is to omit the duty upon fabric
gloves. This Resolution, as a whole, deals with leather gloves and fabric gloves together. The Amendment which has just lately been moved by my hon. Friend below me was for the purpose of omitting any duty upon leather gloves. That Amendment has now been defeated, and I now move to omit the duty on fabric gloves. The hon. Gentleman who is speaking for the Government is now in his place. I express the hope at the beginning of this discussion that the Amendment from this side of the Committee shall, on this occasion, have some reply from the hon. Gentleman. I recognise that the Debate collapsed rather speedily, but the fact remains that the reason for that was that we were keeping our ammunition in order to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say in reply to my hon. Friend. When he remained silent, as happened on a larger occasion last night, the Debate naturally collapsed. On this occasion I hope he will give a reply to the points I wish to bring before him.
This question of fabric gloves raises a point which opens up the whole principle on which the Government are acting in connection with these Committees, and the instructions that it has been giving to them. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the first essential condition which any industry has to fulfil, according to the statement and the pledges of the Government, before it can obtain a tariff, is not that the industry has simply to prove that there is a large number of imports coming into this country. That would lead to a general tariff which would break the pledge which the Prime Minister has given. The specific condition which must be fulfilled under the safeguarding proposals is that the amount of imports coming into this country now must be abnormal. They must be unprecedented in comparison with previous standards taken before the War. I would remind the hon. Gentleman of what the interpretation of this has been. The President of the Board of Trade was asked on the first Debate on this subject, "If you are going to say that imports are at this moment abnormal—abnormal compared to when?" The answer he gave was that in all ordinary cases the meaning of the Government was abnormal as compared to the period of 1913.
When these Committees are appointed we find that, as a result of their investigations and the figures put before them, some of those industries cannot obtain a tariff under those conditions. Fabric gloves is one of them. That industry cannot obtain a tariff because, as the Report of the Committee shows, the proportion of imports from abroad coming into this country this year is smaller than the proportion in 1913, therefore, according to the conditions of the Government originally laid down, the whole case breaks down and no tariff ought to be granted.
What has been done? The President of the Board of Trade explained this afternoon in his opening speech what had been done. What has been done is that because 1913 does not give the result, the year 1920 is taken instead, and if it can be proved that imports are greater now than in 1920 that fulfils the condition of unprecedented competition. I wish to take the argument that the President of the Board of Trade used, and see what it means. His argument was this. If you have an industry which was small before the War, in 1913, and which has expanded, then it would be unfair to penalise it on that account, and therefore we will take 1920, a post-War year, as our standard in that particular case. That is the argument. What does that mean? That moans that this condition which practically amounts to a pledge makes the difference between safeguarding and a general tariff. This condition is rendered absolutely meaningless and ridiculous. What does it mean? You have a small industry, an industry which before the War was conducted on a tiny scale, employing people who only fill a corner of Westminster Hall. War breaks out. During the War it has a monopoly of the markets, and all the raw materials which no other country can obtain. The result of that is naturally that a group of new firms arise. Then in 1920 that industry naturally reaches its peak—its maximum production. But the whole thing is forced. It is an artificial incubation, and at the end of it the Government says, "What we are now going to say is that, as the result of this artificial extension leading to the maximum of 1920, the year 1920 is now normal, and any imports which come into this country because trade resumes its usual channel are all
abnormal." You are going to calculate industry on this artificial peak for ever. If you are going to juggle with your figures like that, it renders this test meaningless and it turns Safeguarding Duties into duties based upon the principle of a general tariff which the Prime Minister stated he was not going to introduce.
There is one further fact. Hon. Gentlemen speak as if they could do almost anything by means of a tariff. I believe that any business man will recognise that, even if you can get a tariff, there are things that a tariff cannot do. In practice a tariff cannot continue in existence an industry which has been built on an artificial and unreal basis. Moreover, you may injure industry as a whole and you do not assist the trade that you have in mind. Look at this industry of fabric gloves; look at the history of the tariff there. It is all given in this Report; everything I am saying is contained in this Report, which supplies all my knowledge of the subject. In 1913, there were just six rather small firms in this country making fabric gloves. They would not have filled Westminster Hall. The War broke out. They got this industry going under artificial conditions. The industry had a monopoly of Egyptian cotton, and the consequence was that a number of new firms arose. But an industry cannot be maintained on that basis; it has not the genuine foundation.
The Government are now trying to maintain it by means of a duty. Owing to causes beyond my own control, I was not in this House when that duty was imposed, but I read the Debates rather more carefully probably than if I had Been here. This is what happened: In the attempt to maintain the industry the duty was kept in being from August, 1922, to August, 1924. The results of the duty on the industry are shown in this Report. I see that in the year before the duty was imposed, 1921, foreign imports to this country represented 60 per cent. of the total consumption. In 1922, the first year of the duty, foreign imports rose from 60 to 87 per cent. In this last year, for which figures are given, they have risen to 88 per cent. That shows that a tariff cannot do these unnatural things. It shows that in spite of a duty there is a genuine and powerful demand
for these foreign goods, which the people must have, and the demand is such that it becomes perfectly clear that the duties cannot counteract natural consequences.
I read the Debates, and every hon. Member is familiar with the facts. The facts are that this industry of the manufacture of fabric gloves, insignificant though it is in this country, has been planted for generations in Chemnitz. There were six little firms in this country. In Chemnitz there are 500 that have been there for generations, working under massed production and with relations with each other. A duty of this sort cannot and ought not to be able to exclude goods which are coming into this country and which we are buying, not because of low wages or anything unfair, but simply because of the fact that by generations of acquired experience, this industry is conducted in Saxony with a skill which almost amounts to a science. In the circumstances, this duty merely injures the general public. It cannot work against these natural forces and is bound to fail.

Sir B. CHADWICK: I rise at once this time, for fear of missing my opportunity. I assure the hon. Gentleman who proposed the last Amendment that it was out of no disrespect to him that I did not reply. As a matter of fact I saw the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) get up to contribute to the Debate, and I felt that that would be an opportunity for me to absorb for a few morn moments what had been said by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), and before I knew it the hon. Member for Shoreditch had concluded, the Question had been put, and I was rather caught. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) speaks of the establishment of this old industry of glove making in Chemnitz and of the firm foundation on which the industry stands by reason of its age, the experience gained, and the fact that it has passed on from generation to generation. Almost in the words of the Report he would indicate that it is practically hopeless for an Englishman to try to compete with these people. If that be in his mind, it is a doctrine which does not carry any kind of weight with me.
The hon. Member may recall a speech made earlier in the Debate by the hon.
Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene), who traced the industry through the ages in Worcester. He may recall that the hon. Member spoke of the industry as employing over 30,000 people in Worcester over 100 years ago, before we dropped a, duty which had been imposed on foreign gloves. Then, during some negotiations with France, we gave away our duty, in the hope that we would get some reciprocity, which was not forthcoming. When we gave away our duty we gave away the Worcester glove trade, and we have never got it back again. May not that explain the position of the industry in Chemnitz? What is the duty on gloves going from Germany into France? I think it is about 190 francs per kilo—at any rate it is an enormous duty. The hon. Member opposite argued against a tariff in any form, but I think he will find it difficult to establish the argument now put forward that because a trade is so firmly established in Germany, we are not entitled to make an effort on behalf of our own people at home to whom this trade is not by any means a new one, but to whom it belonged many generations before we were here dealing with those matters.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us more details of this duty of 190 francs per kilo.?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I have already said I am not quite sure what the duty is, but I know it is a big duty. The hon. Member who spoke last referred to the fabric glove industry as an artificial innovation and a War production which came into being when we had no foreign goods and he seemed to ask, why should we maintain an industry which came into being in those circumstances. In effect, he asked, "Why should we maintain it? It has no right here. It is not our trade. It is true that at the end of the War instead of 1,800 people it was employing 10,000 or 11,000, but it is only an artificial War-time product and let us do away with it." I do not understand the attitude of mind of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this matter. I stand here as a representative of Labour—like most of my hon. Friends on this side—and trying to divest myself of my political views just for a moment and trying to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite on common ground in this
matter, I fail to understand why even if this proposal were not as sound as I think it is, they should resist an opportunity of trying to do something to foster these trades. I cannot understand why they should object to such an effort, knowing in their own minds that there can be no harm to anybody in doing so—even putting it on that low level. How can the hon. Member opposite stand up and say "Let this industry and go and let these 10,000 or 11,000 people go," simply because from his own political point of view entirely, and without any experience, he believes that certain harm may be done in other directions? We have enough of the attitude which is expressed in the words "It cannot be done." We are going to see if it can be done and I am sure that hon. Members on this side intend that at any rate it will not be possible to say later on that there was any want of trying to do it. I think I have dealt with the points put forward on this Amendment and also the points which were raised on the previous Amendment.

Captain BENN: The speech of the hon. Gentleman does credit to his heart but does not carry us much further. Let me put a few questions to him. His speech amounts to this "You say it cannot be done. I say it can be done and we are going to try to do it." How is he going to try to do it. Does he mean sincerely that he has found something which will save these fabric glove people from unemployment?

Sir B. CHADWICK: indicated assent.

Captain BENN: Then if it is to be applied to the fabric glove industry, why not apply it to every other industry? The hon. Gentleman will not answer that question, and we can quite understand his reluctance. I can understand that he does not relish the zeal with which we have been asking these questions. The hon. Gentleman would have it appear that he has a specific which is going to save these people; that we are the heartless wretches who will not save them, but that he is determined to strike out and do something for these workers. I do not like to say that his professions are not sincere, but I say that, judged by all the political actions of the Government, that plea on their behalf is not sincere. If they believed in it, they would say,
"This is going to rid the country of unemployment, and we will preach it in the country until we convert the country to it, and thus render a great national service."

Mr. ALBERY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman in order in referring to the general question of tariffs?

The CHAIRMAN: I must say that my ear was occupied otherwise at the moment, but I will follow the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman with greater interest and attention henceforth.

Captain BENN: I thank you, Sir, and if you desire I will give you a slight sketch 01 outline of my remarks up to this point. I was trying to reply to the earnest speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I say that the test is whether he and his friends are prepared to apply this specific, not only to facric gloves, but elsewhere. I judge that they are not prepared to do so, and that, I submit, is a complete answer to the plea of sentiment. If his specific is all he claims it to be, why does he not apply it all round? He will not do it because ho knows, and the Government know, that the thing is economically unsound. The hon. Gentleman referred to the position of the industry in Worcester 100 years ago before the commercial treaty with Prance. May I ask, does he regard those as "the good old days," because he spoke as though he regarded the treaty negotiated with France as a disaster? He said that the French promised to give us something which they did not give. Does he think that the French commercial treaty was a mistake? Can he tell us if it is intended to turn backward to those golden days when we had some thousand of duties —before they were abolished in the middle of last century. It is important that we should know that, because while there may be nothing much in a decision as regards fabric gloves, there is a great deal in knowing the road on which the Government is determined to direct the country.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the position of the industry in Chemnitz was the result of generation after generation of operatives having practised it. Therefore, does he wish to copy the Saxon model in this country? Undoubtedly he does, and in that case he does not wish to have this as a five years'
duty. Why does he not say it is to be permanent? When you test this, it shows that the Government programme is a sham. They are professing not to do the thing that all their supporters would like them to do. Their supporters in their hearts would like them to do it, but they would not have their supporters in their constituencies with them if they attempted to do it. As we said before in this issue, we are not operating in vacuo here. We are dealing with a case which has been tried, and I think there would have been more logic—I hope not at the expense of the sentiment in the hon. Gentleman's speech—if he had explained some of the grave defects in the working of this duty when it existed. In 1921 there was a Committee which went into this case, and at that time the plea v as that the German exchange was so inflated that a duty was necessary. In 1924 another Committee sits, and although the German exchange is no longer inflated, but stabilised, they still recommend a duty.
I ask the Committee to consider whether it is not really necessary for the hon. Gentleman, before he requests us to put on a duty which he pretends is for five years, but which his plea is that it should be for ever, to tell us why it was that such a duty when it existed had no effect whatever in reviving the industry. We have got his own figures. He will not challenge the figures, even if from time to time we do. Why was it that, whereas the foreigners had 87 per cent. of that trade before there was a duty, after the duty had been in operation for two years the foreigners had 88 per cent.? When ho tells us, "Here are the men unemployed; let us do something for them," he appeals to our hearts. But the thing has been tried, and so far from diminishing the foreigners' share of the trade, it has actually increased it by 1 per cent.

Sir B. CHADWICK: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that during that period of which he is speaking the mark had depreciated from I do not know how many hundreds to millions of millions?

10.0 P.M.

Captain BENN: But does the hon. Gentleman say that this tariff device did protect this market, or does he say the foreign share of the trade increased in that period? [An HON. MEMBER: "It
was not able to!"] That the duty was not able to achieve its end? [An HON. MEMBER: "Not against such a depreciation!"] The hon. Member knows that that was the year when the increase was 88 per cent. That was the year when stabilisation had begun—namely, 1924. If anyone looks at the figures of German exports, the depreciation of the mark did not at all act as a bounty on German export. Their exports were constantly declining while their marks were sinking. That was the year when stabilisation took place, and, in spite of the tariff, there was an increase in the share of this trade of 1 per cent. We cannot, much as we should like to do so, agree with his warm and sympathetic appeal, until he has explained why this same device at the same rate of duty spread over two years had exactly the reverse effect that he said it is going to have. That must be explained by someone; if not by himself, perhaps by one of his ardent supporters. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
"Why not let us try this scheme? Why stand in the way?" He considers there is some petty or academic doctrine which stands in the way. We have practical humanitarian reasons. It is a very unfortunate thing that the Glove Tax happens to synchronise with the very cold spell of weather. Hon. Members after the late sitting might have seen hundreds and hundreds of poor people marching over the bridges like an army going into the city to their work. How do those people keep their hands from the cold? They cannot afford expensive gloves, but have to buy the cheapest form of gloves, and they walk because it is cheaper than to take the omnibus. I know, having represented one of these East End divisions many years in this House, and although we do not realise it, it is a fact that to many people there is a choice of taking an omnibus or having the money actually for some necessary. The hon. Member is putting a tax of 33⅓ per cent. on a pair of gloves which, I believe, you can now get for 7d. or 8d. Why should you tax these poor people? Why put a bounty on chilblains? This is a small example. There are many examples, but let hon. Members understand this. We believe economically these taxes are unsound, and that from a humanitarian standpoint they
are cruel, because they tax the very necessities of the poor people.

Mr. J. HUDSON: It is somewhat difficult for us to resist the attitude that was adopted throughout, at any rate, this part of the Debate. The hon. Gentleman who represents the Government (Sir B. Chad-wick) made a very earnest appeal, in which he assured us that he had taken off his political coat, and was standing on the same ground as ourselves in an effort to secure more employment. I accept the earnestness of his desire, but I would remind him that you do not get employment by desires of that kind. Indeed if the hon. Gentleman had been more careful in his study of recent history—

Mr. ALBERY: On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member has not said a single word on the Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: I hope that the hon. Member will confine himself more strictly to the point under discussion.

Mr. HUDSON: Coming directly to the point of the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, if he had studied the two years of history during which the duties were levied on fabric gloves, he would have seen that although at the beginning, when a duty of 33⅓ per cent. was imposed there were 25 manufacturers in this country, on the confession of the manufacturers, who are appealing for this protection, at the end of the two years, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) made the arrangement by which that tax came to an end, the number of employers in this industry had been reduced to 13. The hon. Gentleman, it is true, made the point that there were difficulties in regard to foreign exchange in that period. But are there not likely to be difficulties in regard to foreign exchange in the future? Considering the position in France we can understand what may be likely to happen in France, and what is likely to happen is a reaction in other countries. It is more than likely that we may repeat, with regard to general European trade, exactly the conditions which we experienced a little while ago. Therefore the proposals which are now being made are not more likely to guarantee employment than were the proposals which were acted upon from 1922 to 1924.
The desire of employers for a return to the tax which was adopted some years ago has nothing to do with the earnest desire of the hon. Gentleman for more employment for the workers. The period during which they had these taxes was a period of swollen profits. It was a period during which they exercised their greed to the utmost, and bled the people of this country with high prices for the commodities which were sold, and now they are looking again for an opportunity to secure prices which are beyond what is justified by the cost of producing the article. We are not prepared, even though the hon. Gentleman's desires for employment are absolutely sincere, to embark on a policy which, it is plain from the figures which are given, will not guarantee employment, but is likely to guarantee higher profits for those who do not deserve them, and to place on the consumers a burden that the consumers should not bear.
I agree entirely with the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) that what is going to happen is that the people who to-day can buy gloves, however defective they may be, however much they may be prevented from getting fur gloves or leather gloves or other types of gloves, will have no gloves if there be a repetition of the powers which operated from 1922 to 1924. And I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman will again take off his political coat, and will try to stand with us and will consider the interests of all the working classes, he will not risk embarking upon this scheme on the flimsy protest that a little employment might be obtained, when at the same time a very heavy burden would be placed upon large numbers of workers throughout the country. It is for this reason that I support the Motion before the Chair.

Mr. DREWE: Coming from a county which makes fabric gloves, the first, I think, in this country in which fabric gloves were made, I think it only right to express my views in favour of these Resolutions which the Government are putting forward.
I want to bring this issue down to what I believe is exactly the one and only reason why the Government have brought forward these proposals. It is simply and solely to help relieve unemployment in
the different industries to be covered by these duties. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) has made considerable fun of the fabric glove industry. He told us, in his earlier speech, that this industry was not an efficient one in this country. I am perfectly prepared to say that the fabric gloves produced in this country are second to none anywhere in the world, and if the hon. and gallant Member is taking a holiday at any time, and likes to come to North Devon, I will conduct him over a fabric glove industry where they make the finest fabric gloves in the world.

Captain BENN: I do not know whether the hon. Member is making his first speech in this House, in which case it would not be in accordance with Parliamentary etiquette to interrupt him, but, with his permission, I would like to ask him whether this flourishing and efficient industry is in this flourishing and efficient condition without the aid of a duty.

Mr. DREWE: That was the point I was trying to make to the Committee. We are bringing forward these Resolutions because we want to improve employment, and that is the one and only reason, in my opinion, why they are being brought forward. We are told that there is not very much difference between the number of men employed in 1913 and the number of men employed to-day. There is practically only a difference of 600. It has (been pointed out that in 1920 there were some 10,000 men employed in the industry, whereas, to-day, there are only 1,800. I say there are 8,000 trained men and women in the glove-making industry who are out on the streets to-day, on the dole, or earning their living in some other way for which they were not trained, and if this industry is given the necessary encouragement and help to meet the grossly unfair foreign competition, there is not the smallest reason why we should not get these people absorbed in the fabric-glove industry again at the present time.
Hon. Members opposite have made some play with the fact that the duties in 1921 did not do the industry any permanent good, but I thought that point was answered by the Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade. It is certainly a fact that, when the duties were put on in 1921, the German mark stood at about 900 to the £. Within a few weeks of
those duties being imposed, the mark collapsed and went down to some millions to the £, and that is the reason why those duties did not have any far-reaching results. There was for a few months, possibly for the first year, some reaction in favour of better trade, but immediately the results of the depreciation of the mark were felt the whole of the benefit went away from the industry. I am quite prepared to expect hon. Members of the Liberal party to oppose Resolutions like these every time they come up, but, as a new Member of this House, I fail absolutely to understand how hon. Members of the Socialist party, who never hesitate to tell us, inside and outside this House, that they, and they alone, represent the true interests of the working people, can come down here and oppose these duties, which must have the effect of getting a larger number of men absorbed in the various industries which are suffering at the present time, and suffering only because of the grossly unfair foreign competition. During the speeches on the Locarno Conference, the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) referred to the conditions of the German workers, and that is where we are suffering in the fabric glove industry to-day. It is from Germany, and from Germany alone practically. The right hon. Gentleman said in his speech:
We are actually now being told that the hours of the British workers must be increased and their standards lowered to the level that has been reached in Germany."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November 1925; col. 530, Vol. 188.]
I would like to ask hon. Members opposite what they think is going to happen to the standard of workers in this country, in the various industries which are suffering as they are from this unfair foreign competition, unless they are given some safeguards, and that is what we on this side of the House are asking for. I am not for one moment prepared to argue the merits of Protection or Free Trade as they existed before the War. What I do say is this: that I am perfectly prepared to say, and those who are responsible for the conduct of this industry are prepared to say, that the industry is practically to-day at a standstill simply and solely because of the lower standard of living and the greater
number of hours worked by our competitors who make fabric gloves in Germany.
All that those occupied in the industry are asking for is fair play. They do not want any privileges. They do not want to be put into any special position of favour above other industries. They want to be given the opportunity to compete on perfectly fair terms. I have always maintained in the country, as I am now prepared to maintain here—I am perfectly confident of it—that the very large majority of British workers are prepared to do an honest day's work to earn an honest day's wage rather than eke out their living by means of unemployment relief. I have ample evidence from the little town of Torrington, in North Devon, where this industry began. I can give ample evidence that there are men there who have been trained all their lives as cutters in the fabric glove industry, and now find that there is no more work for them to do. They have had to accept work as navvies on recent new railway construction and accept work at breaking stones at the road side. These are skilled cutters in the fabric glove industry.
Are the Committee, I ask, going to sit here with folded arms and tell these men that they will have to wait until something better turns up? Hon. Members opposite, Members of the Socialist party, may be prepared to do that. So far as we on this side are concerned we stand by and support the policy of this Government which says: "We want to do everything possible to improve the standard of life of the workpeople of this country." We honestly do believe that a Measure such as this for safeguarding industry is to the good. We believe that in the case of an industry which can prove that it is suffering from grossly unfair foreign competition this is a very practical way of dealing with the matter. I only want to make a reference to what was said earlier by a right hon. Gentleman. This industry is very much, as he said, a rural industry. A very large number of workers have been employed, and I think that is possibly lost sight of. I just want to quote one or two figures. In the old days when this industry was prosperous, outwork was taken into cottage homes over a radius of 30 miles from the town where the factory was situated. At the present time in Torring-
ton itself there are some 40 men and women getting employment as outworkers. Throughout the whole of the district, where before as many as 200 women were employed in outwork, there are only two.
There is not the slightest reason why this state of things should not be altered. Anyone who has any knowledge of rural areas at the present time knows that the labourers, under present conditions, do not earn very much. If it is possible to do anything to bring work again into the cottage homes of the women and so help their livelihood I will support it. These are practical reasons why we are asking the House to accept these proposals which have been brought forward by the Government. I do not want to give other figures from the Report. That has been already done; but to substantiate the point as to extreme foreign competition I would point out that whereas during the whole of last year some 954,000 dozen pairs of fabric gloves were sent into this country, in the first four months of this year more than 1,000,000 dozen pairs of fabric gloves came in. I would ask the Committee to get on with the work and pass these duties. If I might make an appeal to the patriotism of the Members of the Committee, why not give our own British workers a chance of a decent day's work instead of allowing the Germans to get the work and our own men to walk the streets? To my mind, that is putting the whole thing in a nutshell. I ask the Committee to support these duties.

Mr. HARNEY: I do not intend to keep the Committee for many minutes, and a part of those minutes I shall devote to congratulating the last speaker upon what seemed to me to be a very excellent maiden speech, which I hope is only the precursor of many more speeches we may hear from him. Being a very innocent man, I have been looking through this Report. It seemed to me that the idea of the Report was to inform the President of the Board of Trade. In the Report I find this:
We have considered the question of glove fabric, and are of opinion that the Applicants have not established a claim for a duty.
The Report goes on to say that the reason why the Committee consider that the claim for a duty upon the material has
not been established is that, as they have found in favour of a duty on the finished article, more employment would be given by allowing the raw material to come in free. That is what the Committee find, and in obedience to their suggestion a Resolution is moved by the President of the Board of Trade that a duty be imposed upon
Gloves cut out of woven or knitted material consisting in whole or in part of cotton and sewn up and known as fabric gloves,
and that the duty is also to be imposed upon
material for such gloves cut out ready for sewing.
The Committee, having reported that there should be no duty upon the material for such gloves cut out and ready for sewing, I want to know what is the justification of the President of the Board of Trade for giving a blank negative to the suggestion of the Committee which he set up himself? Another point I have observed in the Report is this: The Committee had to deal with several questions set out in the circular. The first question they deal with is whether the applicant industry is, by reason of the volume of unemployment, one of substantial importance. The favourable way to answer that question was to say that the volume of employment was small. Accordingly, they say that the volume of employment is 10,000 persons employed in the manufacture of leather goods, and 1,800 employed in the manufacture of fabric gloves. The answer to the question is intended to be more favourable in order to show that there were many employed. They make the number 11,800, and at a later stage they ask whether by reason of the severity of such competition, employment is being seriously affected. Therefore it would be in the interests of those who favour the duty to show that employment was seriously affected, and accordingly the numbers that were given as 11,800 were reduced to 7,032, when the answer would be favourable to the other side the number was made smaller.
Here you get a committee supposed to be perfectly imparital when the answer is one that would be favourable to the President of the Board of Trade's view they make the number large, and so they
put it as 11,800. Then you have the same body at a later stage asking whether it would favour the views of the President of the Board of Trade to make it smaller and then they reduce it to 7,032. When you see this kind of thing going on one is a little sceptical as to their impartiality. When I was in the House a few minutes before dinner I heard an hon. Member state with great indignation that it was very improper for hon. Members on this side to cast imputations upon the absolute impartiality of this tribunal because it was a judicial body. I understand a judicial body to be one where you have the views upon both sides stated without any impediment and where you have a decision given upon sworn evidence. What is the fact here? You have a body selected not because of its impartiality but because of its presumed partiality. The President of the Board of Trade does not go out of his way—

Mr. ALBERY: I would like to ask you, Captain FitzRoy, if all this has anything at all to do with the Question before the Committee?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and learned Member might confine himself a little more closely to the particular Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. HARNEY: I think I am doing so. The reply I am giving is that this is in no sense a judicial body. It is appointed politically by the President of the Board of Trade, who selects those whom he considers to be suitable from his point of view. There is no sworn evidence: those who put forward the ease of the applicant can put it forward in full; those who can be heard on the other side—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and learned Member that all this was gone into very fully yesterday, and that he need not go into it again.

Mr. HARNEY: I am sorry; I was not here yesterday. At all events, I only rose to put before the President of the Board of Trade these two points that I have mentioned—firstly, how he can reconcile with the Report of his Committee a Resolution which goes quite in the teeth of it; and, secondly, how he can
reconcile with impartiality two figures in the Report, the one enlarged when it would suit his side that they should be enlarged, and the other minimised when it would suit his view of the case that it should be minimised.

Major CRAWFURD: I only want to raise one brief point in answer to the speech of an hon. Member on the other side, I think the hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Drewe), who raised sympathetic cheers from the hon. Members near him, who found in their appreciation of the lot of the agricultural labourer a little relief from the tedium of the speeches on this side. The hon. Member raised sympathetic cheers by pointing out the condition of the agricultural labourer, and suggesting that these Resolutions are being brought in in order to give increased employment to the people of this country; and he adopted, quite rightly, of course, a very serious attitude on that matter. We give him every credit for being sincere in the matter and for believing what he says, and I hope hon. Members opposite will give us the same credit of being perfectly sincere when we say we believe these proposals will lead to increased unemployment, or to retardation of employment, and to economic disaster. The hon. Member was referring, I presume, to his own constituency, and, with your permission, Captain FitzRoy, I am going to refer for two or three minutes to mine.
I have been this afternoon in the middle of one of the poorest districts in London at a sale of work, organised by a body which consistently caters for the very poor—the people who are, above all, users of fabric gloves. In that sale of work people are coming, as we sit here, to spend to the best possible advantage in no case more than a few shillings, and to get the very best possible value they can for those few shillings. I would ask hon. Members opposite not to disregard this question of the poverty of the people on whom the effect of these Resolutions is going to press hardly, and the argument with which I would follow up my statement is this: If by means of the duties which these Resolutions, if carried into effect, will impose, the cost of these articles is increased—and they are all articles which affect the poor—then the purchasing power of the poor people of this country will be
diminished, and the result of a diminution of that purchasing power is going to be to diminish the employment which their money otherwise would have produced.
If that is our belief, we are bound to examine, and we are right to examine, the proposals which are brought before us on behalf of these industries, and, with regard to this particular one, I am only going to say this: The hon. Member to whom I have previously referred said that he would not refer to the table of figures in the Report, because they had already been discussed. I will follow him in not referring to them, but will simply say that the figures given for employment show that this particular industry, immediately after the War, increased enormously. It grew very rapidly; it was in effect, at that time, what is called a mushroom industry. The figures in these tables prove that the imposition of the duty which was put on before completely failed to bring about the results which were expected of it; and the figures also prove that that industry is now, as regards the proportion of imported gloves to home-made gloves, merely returning to the normal position. I say, in view of that, that this Committee will be right to pause very seriously before they put an increased burden on the poor people whom not only I but very many other Members of the House represent.

Mr. RYE: It appears to be the fashion to-night to refer to one's constituency, and I should like in turn to refer to mine. I do so in connection with the statement that has been made by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches that these duties, if imposed, would only benefit the employers and would not benefit the working classes engaged in the fabric glove industry. I should like to give an instance of what took place in my own constituency before the last Election. A manufacturer had installed, at very considerable cost, two machines for the express purpose of making fabric for the manufacture of fabric gloves,

and when Protection ran off, he found it quite impossible to carry on that business in consequence of the unfair competition from abroad, with the result that the whole of the employés who had been specially engaged to work in connection with those two machines— they had cost about £4,000—had to be dismissed. I saw myself the empty factory, I saw two expensive machines lying idle. I was told those men and women had to be dismissed, and I was told that other employés who derived benefit from their working of those machines had had to go on short time. I think the Committee, knowing those facts, will appreciate that the imposition of these duties will be a benefit, not merely to the employers, but to others who are engaged in that industry.

Mr. HARRIS: This proposal deliberately goes out of its way, after very careful consideration, to exclude the duty on the fabric itself. Of course there is a minority report, but we understand that the minority report is to be ignored. It is unreasonable to give the manufacturer of gloves a free market to buy where he likes and then put on a tariff to protect him in the article. I could understand an honest, sincere Protectionist who believes that if you put on a tariff it means more employment and more prosperity. If that is the view of hon. Members opposite and of the President of the Board of Trade, it is most unfair, unreasonable and improper to deny to the hon. Member's constituents the protection they are giving to gloves. The whole thing is illogical and absurd. We object to it because it is illogical and absurd. The more you study and explore and experiment with these duties, the more proof you will have that they will be unfair and unreasonable in their incidence.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 128.

Division No. 457.
AYES.
[10.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Atkinson, C.
Betterton, Henry B.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Birchall, Major J. Dearman


Albery, Irving James
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Baldes, Sir George Rowland


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Balniel, Lord
Blundell, F. N.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Boothby, R. J. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Apsley, Lord
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive-


Atholl, Duchess of
Bethell, A.
Briscoe, Richard George


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, C. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pennefather, Sir John


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Perring, William George


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hawke, John Anthony
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bullock, Captain M.
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Pielou, D. P.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Preston, William


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Campbell, E. T.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Radford, E. A.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ramsden, E.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Remer, J. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Huntingfield, Lord
Rye, F. G.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Salmon, Major I.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cope, Major William
Jacob, A. E.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jephcott, A. R.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Savery, S. S.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew. W.)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lamb, J. Q.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Skelton, A. N.


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Smithers, Waldron


Drewe, C.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Loder, J. de V.
Storry Deans, R.


Elliot, Captain Walter E
Looker, Herbert William
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Elveden, Viscount
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lougher, L.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frase


Everard, W. Lindsay
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lumley, L. R.
Templeton, w. P.


Fade, Sir Bertram G.
Mac Andrew, Charles Glen
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Fermoy, Lord
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Fielden, E. B.
Macintyre, I.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Finburgh, S.
McLean, Major A.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macquisten, F. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Malone, Major P. B.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Galbraith. J. F. W.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ganzoni, Sir John
Merriman, F. B.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Gates, Percy
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wells, S. R.


Gee, Captain R,
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Grace, John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wilson, R, R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Grotrian, H. Brent
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wise, Sir Fredric


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Womersley, W. J.


Gunston, Captain D. W,
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich. W).


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hammersley, S. S.
Neville, R. J.



Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nuttall, Ellis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harrison, G. J. C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Bromley, J.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Ammon, Charles George
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Day, Colonel Harry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buchanan, G.
Dennison, R.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cape, Thomas
Duckworth, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Charleton, H. C.
Duncan, C.


Barnes, A.
Clowes, S.
Dunnico, H.


Barr, J.
Cluse, W. S.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Batey, Joseph
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Fenby, T. D.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Compton, Joseph
Forrest, W.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Connolly, M,
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cove, W. G.
Gillett, George M.


Broad, F. A.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Gosling, Harry


Bromfield, William
Dalton, Hugh
Greenall, T.




Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Snail, Harry


Groves, T.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Grundy, T. W.
Mackinder, W.
Stamford, T. W.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
MacLaren, Andrew
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark N.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sutton, J. E.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
March, S.
Taylor, R. A.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Thurtle, E.


Hardie, George D.
Montague, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Harney, E. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Townend, A. E.


Harris, Percy A.
Murnin, H.
Trevalyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Naylor, T. E.
Varley, Frank B.


Hayday, Arthur
Palin, John Henry
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Paling, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.
Weir, L. M.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Westwood, J.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, W.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Wiggins, William Martin


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Kelly, W. T
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kennedy, T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kirkwood, D.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lansbury, George
Scurr, John
Windsor, Walter


Lawson, John James
Sexton, James
Wright, W.


Lee, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lindley, F. W.
Smillie, Robert



Livingstone, A. M.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lowth, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Mr. Charles Edwards and




Mr. Warne.

Main Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 129.

Division No. 458.]
AYES.
[10.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hartington, Marquess of


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Albery, Irving James
Craik, Rt. Hen. Sir Henry
Haslam, Henry C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hawke, John Anthony


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Apsley, Lord
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Holt, Captain H. P.


Atkinson, c.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Drewe, C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Balniel, Lord
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Elveden, Viscount
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Barnston, Major sir Harry
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Huntingfield, Lord


Betterton, Henry B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midi'n & P'bls)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Fade, Sir Bertram G.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Jacob, A. E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fielden, E. B.
Jephcott, A. R.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Finburgh, S.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Briscoe, Richard George
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
King, Capt. Henry Douglas


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lamb, J. O.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bullock, Captain M.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gates, Percy
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gee, Captain R.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Campbell, E. T.
Gower, Sir Robert
Loder, J. de V.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R.(Prtsmth. S.)
Grace, John
Looker, Herbert William


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Lougher, L.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grotrian, H. Brent
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harmamn


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lumley, L. R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hammersley. S. S.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macintyre, Ian


Cope, Major William
Harrison, G. J. C.
McLean, Major A.


Macquisten, F. A.
Radford, E. A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Maitland, sir Arthur D. Steel-
Ramsden, E.
Templeton, W. P.


Malone, Major P. B.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Margesson, Captain D.
Remer, J. R.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Merriman. F. B.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Rye, F. G.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Salmon, Major I.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Warrender, Sir Victor


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Morrison. H. (Wilts. Salisbury)
Savery, S. S.
Wells, S. R.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Murchison, C. K.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Neville. R. J.
Skelton, A. N.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Nuttall, Ellis
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Smithers, Waldron
Womersley, W. J.


Pennefather, Sir John
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Perring, William George
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Storry Deans, R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Pielou, D. P.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.



Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Preston, William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser



NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barnes, A.
Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barr, J.
Harney, E. A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Scurr, John


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton, James


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayes, John Henry
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Bromfield, William
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stamford, T. W.


Cape. Thomas
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, E.


Collins. Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker. John Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Townend, A. E.


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Varley, Frank B.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lindley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Walsh. Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Warne, G. H.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Weir, L. M.


Duckworth, John
Mackinder, W.
Westwood, J.


Duncan. C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Whiteley, W.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wiggins, William Martin


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
March, S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Fenby, T. D.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Forrest, W.
Montague, Frederick
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Garro-Jones. Captain G. M.
Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, Walter


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Wright, W.


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B.


Grundy, T. W.
Potts. John S.
Smith.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

Resolved:
That during a period of five years from the passing of an Act for giving effect to this Resolution there shall be charged on
the importation of the following articles into Great Britain or Northern Ireland a duty of customs of an amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value of the article, that is to say:
Gloves made in whole or in part of leather or of fur, and leather or fur cut out ready for sewing into gloves, but not including gloves known as astrakhan gloves or gloves in which leather is used only as trimming or binding;
Gloves cut out of woven or knitted material consisting in whole or in part of cotton and sewn up and known as fabric gloves, and material for such gloves cut out ready for sewing.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I rise to put a question to the Government. I think Members of the House—except those who slept last night comfortably in bed—will not be anxious for a late sitting to-night. I desire to ask if the Government have any announcement to make now as to how far they hope or expect to go?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have a fellow-feeling with the right hon. Gentleman, and what I would ask the Committee to do is to dispose of the next Resolution upon the Paper, and I hope that, with brevity in the speeches, we may do so within a reasonable time.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

MANTLES FOR INCANDESCENT LIGHTING.

That during a period of five years from the passing of an Act for giving effect to this Resolution the following duties of Customs shall be charged on the importation into Great Britain or Northern Ireland of the following articles, that is to say,



s.
d.


Mantles for incandescent lighting, whether collodionised or not, the gross
6
0


Impregnated hose or stockings for use in the manufacture of such mantles, the lb.
4
6

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In making this Motion, I think it will be convenient if, as briefly as possible, I deal with the scope of the Resolution. The Resolution refers to incandescent mantles. This matter was referred to the committee, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) indicated, partly in view of the importance and character of the industry. There was nothing abnormal in referring it to the committee because the White Paper, on which he has laid such stress, lays down that the test of the importance of an industry is either the number of people employed or the nature of the goods produced. In the case of gas mantles, he will remember from his experience at the Board of Trade that gas mantles were absolutely vital to this country in the last War, and the Committee in considering the
case were impressed by two considerations. The first, which I think was more present to our minds during the War, was that you cannot strip gas of benzol, toluol and other products used for high explosives without depriving it of a great deal of its lighting power. You can only use it effectively if you employ incandescent mantles in connection with it. It was of great importance in the last War, and would be of considerable importance in any future war, though perhaps of 1ess importance than it was in the last War. Secondly, this industry provides the only commercial outlet for compounds of thorium and cerium, which are absolutely vital to a country in emergency, as flame are carbons for searchlights necessitate large quantities of cerium fluoride. They are also needed for the manufacture of special glasses, luminous compounds for aeroplane equipment—which will make an appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend—for compasses and gun-mountings.
Obviously, these are all things of supreme national importance, and you can only carry out that work if you have a supply of compounds of thorium and cerium. The only way of maintaining the output is by maintaining the industry which provides the only outlet for it, and that is the gas mantle industry. That, in itself, would alone be enough to justify the proposals we are making, on the ground of it being a key industry. However much we may differ about the advantage of a duty for meeting abnormal competition, even the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience, was led to the conclusion that there were certain vital national industries which required safeguarding. The Committee then very naturally go on to consider whether, without the aid of a duty, the gas-mantle industry is likely to continue. They say you cannot take 1913 as a test, and again they are right because, of course, this is an industry which developed in the War, and was carried on afterwards. This industry was comparatively small in this country before the War. Then the Committee considered what was the effect of the duty put on. They say that the duty failed in its purpose because it was only in operation during a particularly exceptional time, when the mark was crashing down by millions and tens of millions at a time, and consequently, at
the price quoted, even with the aid of the duty, no manufacturer could hope to compete.
The Committee then went on to the question of imports, and found that, whereas the imports in 1920 were £78,000 gross, they rose in 1921 to £111,000, in 1924 to £165,000, and this year they are at the rate of anything from £200,000 to £210,000. And they observe in paragraph 20 that during the years 1921 to 1924 importations were at such a rate that British machinery and British factories were largely unemployed. They state that German makers are able to sell at prices with which our manufacturers cannot compete, and they proceed to consider all the advantages which the Germans enjoy. In the first place, they find that overhead charges are lower, and the rate of overhead charges must depend on whether factories are full or empty. They find that labour in Germany is cheaper, and they go into that in some detail in a later paragraph to which I will refer. They find that Germany has an advantage in the cheaper rate of wages, and they say that competition has gravely reduced employment in the industry.
Then in paragraph 28 they add that the numbers employed had not varied greatly in the last three years, though these years were much below 1921, and with respect to the labour employed were much below the full capacity of the buildings and plant. In another section of the Report they state that manufacturers are being forced to sell at prices which cannot show a profit, and therefore, obviously are not likely to continue even on the scale on which they are producing at the present time. They go into a very careful investigation then, and they set out the wages in tables. The wages in this country are given at 6½d., while the wages in Germany, accepting certain figures put in by the Germans, are 5id. If we accept those figures there is a difference of 17 per cent. There is, no doubt about the British figure. It was not challenged, while with regard to the the German wages, very much lower figures were put in by the applicants, but the Committee also treat with considerable reserve the figures which were put in by the Germans. Even accepting the German figures, there is a difference of 17 per cent. in the rate of wages.
They have apparently some difficulty in saying that the competition is unfair. I am not concerned, for the purposes of this particular duty, to prove that the competition is unfair, but I am quite content to found my case on the fact that this is an absolutely vital key industry. At the same time I think that the factors of the lower overhead charges and the difference of 17 per cent. in the wages give a considerable advantage to the foreign exporter to this country. They find, as a fact, that the English manufacturer cannot meet the principal competitor on equal terms. May I read two or three paragraphs from the report? In paragraph 43 they say:
We may here summarise the conclusions reached. The British Gas Mantle Industry is certainly not able in its present state to meet its chief foreign competitor on equal terms. We do not think that it is likely to go under, but it may well dwindle into the production of special brands only. The German mantle undersells the corresponding British mantle, not heavily but quite definitely; and the home industry is, in consequence, working much below its full capacity.
And in paragraph 46:
The significance of the mantle lies first and last in the fact that it is practically the sole commercial outlet for thorium, which in its turn has been described to us as 'the bread and butter' of a group of secondary chemical products, 'compounds of thorium and cerium and other rare earth metals'.
In paragraph 47 they say:
Without going into detail on this part of the evidence we accept the broad fact that the continued production in this country of thorium and cerium is imperative; and we are satisfied that if mantles were not made here the economic production of thorium and cerium would go also, as there is apparently no prospect that they would find a sale abroad.
Also, in paragraph 49:
We are clear that it is a choice between giving reasonable help to this industry and maintaining the thorium and cerium industries in some other way of which we have no indication. Should the former course be chosen by the Government a flat rate not exceeding 6s. per gross (equivalent to one halfpenny per mantle) would in our opinion enable the mantle industry, reorganised and concentrated as it might be, to maintain itself in a healthy state.
That recommendation the Government accept and submit to this Committee. The rate of duty which we propose is 6s., but we take also the equivalent duty of 4s. 6d. a 1b. on the impregnated hose, because plainly it would be im
possible to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee if we merely put the duty upon the completely constructed mantle and left free the impregnated material of which the mantle is made. I have only one other thing to add. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Swansea, suggested—I did not quite follow him — that there was something wrong in comprising this duty in this Bill, but why? If we are to put on a duty he would at once say that the proper way to do it was in a Finance Bill, in a duty-imposing Bill, founded on a Ways and Means Resolution. That is exactly what we are going to do, and it cannot be right to put it in a Budget and wrong to put it in this Bill, and we are taking advantage of the first duty-imposing Finance Bill founded on a Ways and Means Resolution to include this important and essential article. Therefore, I submit that whatever other criticism he may advance, he cannot attack us on the ground of financial precedent or financial purity.

Mr. HARDIE: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us some more information in regard to this question of the manufacture of gas mantles. I note that Page 8 of the Report says that the Committee find that, generally speaking, there is a substantial margin between the prices at which foreign mantles are sold to the wholesaler in this country, and the figures at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured here and sold to the retailer. I should like the President to tell us what were the conditions and arrangements in regard to procuring these things before the War, and after the War. In 1922 we were told in this House by hon. Members on the other side that Germany could produce gas mantles cheaper than we could: that they had all the raw materials. But the history of this matter must not be forgotten. Before the War gas companies were supplying gas at a calorific value of 900 British Thermal Units, and subsequently they were allowed to supply gas of a much less quality. To put forward some of the arguments put forward on the other side is to mislead the House, because the stripping of gas arose through the War, and from the necessity of getting explosive materials out of the gas. But there is no need to do that to-day. Mantles, too were not an invention due to the War, but came about as a natural consequence of
development. And if Germany is better able to compete in the matter of gas mantles, which I doubt, it is possibly because she has been able to find a new deposit of monazite sand. In the old days with quality of gas supplied under Act of Parliament, a good light was given by the flat flame burner, but with the decline of the illuminating power, the flat flame burner went out, and the mantle came in.
I wish when we come to technical subjects like this the President of the Board of Trade would make himself a little more familiar with the details, and not take it that all members are ignorant of the subjects that come up here. I do not know who is responsible for this Report, but if I were looking out for a technical man I certainly would not take this man into my business. If whoever are responsible for this Report have drawn it up from dictation I forgive them, of course, because they had been earning their bread, but if they produced this Report posing as men throwing light on this subject, then I say they are in real darkness so far as this question is concerned. The mantle of light has not fallen on them. With all the money which has been expended, and no matter how high the walls of protection built round an industry, you cannot create efficiency by heightening the tariff wall round inefficiency. On the last occasion the gas mantle trade was before Parliament it was admitted by a Member who had great experience in it that we were incapable of producing the same quality of mantle as did other countries, and that the reason was that we had not gone thoroughly into the science of their manufacture.
Any one going into a house where they burn gas and use mantles can see whether a mantle has been properly made. A mantle which has not been properly made generally has at its bottom a dark disc. That is where the real science of "pouring,'' as it is known, in the hardening of the mantle, comes in. That has not been developed in this country. To protect inefficiency is, to my mind, the one way of destroying not only industry but trade itself. You can do what you like by Protection, but you will not increase efficiency in that way. Members on the other side of the House are responsible for the cuts made in education. Parliament has been responsi-
ble for keeping back that development of elementary education and science that have given to Germany and other countries their "greatest minds." We spoke of them in that way before the War and we have a right to acknowledge the position now. If a country stands against the education of its children on the one hand, and seeks to guard ignorance by tariff walls, the Government of that country cannot be in the hands of intelligent or practical men. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be able to throw some more light on this gas mantle question.

Mr. WIGGINS: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out the words "during a period of five years," and to insert instead thereof the words "for a period of twelve months."
On reading the Report of the Committee it seems to me their chief aim and object has been to emphasise the fact that the two chemicals mentioned there are of national importance to this country. If we admit that they are of national importance to the whole of the population of this country I see no reason why the users of gas mantles should have to bear the whole cost of securing that national advantage. If it is a question of competition, the greatest competitor that the gas mantle has today and will have in the future is the electric light. We are all in our respective spheres advising people to put in electric lighting from the point of view of health and cleanliness, therefore the use of gas mantles is bound to diminish if you tax them. If it be true that these two chemicals are a national necessity, then the nation as a whole should bear the cost. I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade—and perhaps he will allow me to congratulate him upon giving us such a full exposition of the White Paper — that if he attaches such importance to the raising of the money he should find some other way of raising it.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to support this Amendment. There are one or two questions which I think it is necessary for us to put, in order to elucidate some of the very peculiar features of this Report which place it in quits a different class from any other Report which the Committee has issued. The main fact about this Report, which was not put
very dearly before hon. Members in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, is that, so far as the economic conditions of this industry are concerned, and so far as the questions which the right hon. Gentlemen asked the Committee to answer are concerned, the Committee has turned the application of the gas mantle industry down. The Committee was definitely asked to report whether there were unfair and abnormal conditions in reference to this trade, and they reported that
on that part of their case the industry has not made their argument good.
Therefore the Committee rejected it. Then one finds on the next page a kind of unexpected and surprise paragraph in which the Committee nevertheless still come to the conclusion that there ought to be a tariff, but they come to this conclusion by dragging in considerations which were not put before them in the first Instance, which are quite interesting speculations, but which were quite irrelevant to the examination which they were asked to undertake. This is a most peculiar Report. The Committee were asked to consider whether a certain industry needs a tariff, and after concluding that it does not they report officially that a tariff should be imposed on behalf of other industries into which it has not been asked to report.
There are some questions which the President of the Board of Trade ought to answer. The first is, if the tariff is to be imposed, not for the sake of gas mantles, but for the sake of those rare earth metals cerium and thorium, we are entitled to know whether a special examination was made of the cerium and thorium industries. These reports are presented to us in order that we may have the facts, but the Report we are now considering gives us no evidence at all about the cerium and thorium industries beyond a mere vague passage in one paragraph, and there is no evidence in the Report upon which we can form an opinion. Surely, if the argument be that cerium and thorium are, as the President of the Board of Trade said, absolutely vital to our security in time of war, there should be some actual evidence by which we can test that statement. Have the military and naval authorities been consulted? Was this placed before the Committee of Imperial Defence? Surely, they are the
the body to decide. This, however, has apparently been inserted in a perfectly vague and haphazard fashion at the last moment, at the end of the meeting of the Committee, and we are asked to impose this duty on account of great strategical consideration on which we have no evidence at all.
If it be true, as the President of the Board of Trade stated, that these rare metals, cerium and thorium, are absolutely vital to our safety in time of war, and that our requisite supplies of them depend upon the gas mantle industry, then I say that this country is in a most precarious position; and, if that is all we are going to depend upon, it is perfectly clear that the next war will find us with a. grave insufficiency of these requisites upon which our security will depend. That is clear from the report. We are asked to provide this tariff because we are dependent for these war requisites upon the supply of gas mantles in this country, but as a matter of fact the output of gas mantles, in spite of the tariff, is going down every year. I see from page 5 of the report that in spite of the imposition of the duty under the Key Industries Act the output of gas mantles now is only two-thirds of what it was when that duty was imposed, and that indicates what the position is. The fact is that the future of gas mantles as an industry is obviously, as we all know from our own experience, dependent upon forces which no tariff can very much alter one way or the other. The future of gas mantles is precarious, because we are all of us turning more and more to ordinary gas for heating purposes and to electricity for lighting. The very progress of electricity for lighting means that the gas mantle industry is bound correspondingly to decline.
The Government have abandoned the case for protection of gas mantles on economic grounds. That will not be denied. They have put their case simply on the ground of military and naval security, and I venture to say that the case on the ground of military and naval security is largely in the nature of a hoax. I venture to say that if the Committee of Imperial Defence, if the naval and military advisers of the Government really believed that the security of this country was bound up with the future of the Gas Mantle industry, which is
declining every year, they would not quietly tolerate that situation.
These products are quite new to me. I have asked the only gentleman I know who has any authority on these questions and have endeavoured to find out whether in the view of experts it is true the Army and Navy depend on thorium for security in the future.

Mr. LANSBURY: Might we know what thorium is? Why should we have these strange words? I believe it is a Bolshevik plot.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The President of the Board of Trade told us cerium and thorium are rare earth metals absolutely vital to the country if war breaks out. I have been told that at this present moment the supply of thorium is absolutely insufficient for military necessities, and that the real point is that these luminous compounds that are made from thorium as by-products are better made from radium and that it is on their manufacture out of radium that the Army and Navy mainly depend already. Under these circumstances the President of the Board of Trade has abandoned the case for the duties on economic grounds. He has made no attempt whatever to prove any case for the duty on military and naval necessity and he has not put before the Committee any reasons why the Resolution should be passed.

Sir HENRY JACKSON: I should like to be allowed to reply to those technical questions on thorium. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) seemed to be exercised as to the source of monazite and its possibilities for the future. Previous to the War the complete control of monazite was in German hands, and the British mantle manufacturer was hampered in consequence. As a result of the War, and in consequence of the joint action of the Board of Trade and the India Office, the great monazite resources of Travancore have now been freed from the control of the German mantle cartel and are under the complete control of the British. This great source of thorium and cerium is for all time in British hands. The other great constituents of gas mantles. Ramie fibre, asbestos, and china clay, are also Empire products. Thorium and cerium are absolutely essential for
the making of gas mantles. If these two metals were out of our control the whole future of the gas mantle industry would be imperilled. Therefore the President of the Board of Trade is right in saying that this industry depends upon the free ability of the British manufacturers to look to the Empire for the great sources of thorium and cerium in future. Largely relying upon the stability of that industry mills have been built in this country to develop thorium and cerium, but as a consequence of the unfortunate competition to which the right hon. Gentleman has so clearly and explicitly alluded, these mills are now only half employed, and one large mill, built for this purpose is at the present moment out of operation. If thorium and cerium are to be maintained for great national emergency, the future of the gas mantle industry must be maintained.
I have the honour to represent a Constituency in which 95 per cent. of British gas mantles are made, and I know to the full what the relaxation of the duty has meant to a very large number of my constituents. They have been hampered and unemployment has been rife as a consequence and they are looking forward —a large number of young girls who are in many cases the mainstay of their homes—to the imposition of these new duties. I am confident that the Minister is doing a great service for the unemployed in a very crowded part of South London, in addition to procuring for the nation for all time these invaluable metals which are so vital in war and peace.

Mr. MacLAREN: One hon. Member who has just been speaking about these mysterious oxides, says that we now control the mineral deposits. It is on these false assumptions that schemes of this kind can be got through. The main project is supposed to be to defend the gas mantle industry, but when you dig into the inquiry you find that it is really to defend the gentlemen who own and control within the Empire the natural deposits from which these by-products are taken. Before the right hon. Gentleman puts on the gag perhaps he will tell us, or we may find out, who are the people who control these natural deposits
from which these oxides are made. It is. most appropriate that we should have come down to gas mantles. The more I have listened to these Debates the more I am convinced that in future a Member of Parliament will require to serve his time in some emporium dealing in gas mantles, brushes, cutlery or gloves. He will have to be capable of running a Selfridge's stores before taking a seat in the House of Commons. It is a very sad reflection to the community outside, with the distress there is, that we can fritter away time on such piffling matters as these. If we want to give employment, there are other ways of doing it. The whole performance to-day has been a reflection on the mentality of those who hold and control the reins of Government in this country, and a serious matter for thought, that with the condition of the people outside as it is, there should be those who, like jackasses, support propositions of this kind.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I want to draw attention, before the Committee come to their decision, to the fact that the gas mantle industry, as in the case of many of their industries applying for protection, is an instance of the strength of capitalism. There is a perfectly firm ring in the sale of gas mantles in this country. It is responsible for the sale of 95 per cent. of the British mantles in this country, and it is a little enlightening to read the Report of the Committee, who say:
In regard to factory on-costs and in regard to general overhead and administration expenses, there is room for considerable improvement.
I think the general experience is that there is the reverse of economy in this direct and it would be far better to revise the business from the standpoint of efficiency. Wherever combines of this kind grow up, they almost certainly lead to an application for a tariff. Tariff, ring and combine go hand in hand. That is why on previous Amendments I have asked, without getting any answer from the Board of Trade, whether, as a corallary to the policy of piecemeal amendment of the fiscal system by the imposition of tariffs, they are also going to take steps to deal with the trust and combine which always flourish under the cover of tariffs.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been asked to answer the hon. Member
for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), although I rather thought he was giving me information. Of course, I cannot accept the Amendment, which would destroy this proposal, and give no security to this industry. The hon. Member said that this industry does not need the duty, but the Committee say it does, and I ask this Committee to take the view of the Committee, against the view of the hon. Member. When the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was in office, he put thorium and cerium as among the essential things for safety and defence founded on the experience, of the War, and it is endorsed by the considered opinion of the Government's advisers. Then the hon. Gentleman said that there are other outlets. If the hon. Gentlemen can discover any commercial outlet for thorium and cerium other than gas mantles, he will probably make a substantial fortune, which he will be able to divide equally with the members of his own party. I wish him all luck in the endeavour. His last argument was strange. He said that the future of gas mantles is precarious; that the trade will probably dwindle still further. Therefore, he argued, let us bring in all the more German gas mantles so as to make our industry smaller still.

That seems neither wise nor prudent Nor can we count upon radium alone an these matters. We had better make sure of the cheaper material.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: Is there any possibility of raising the very low wages in the gas mantle industry? The present position is that the workers earn only a miserable pittance.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I very much hope so, but when you have an industry on the verge of bankruptcy, and unable to compete with foreign manufacturers, surely the best way of giving an opportunity to the workers, and giving the unions a fund out of which to draw, is to give the industry a chance of competing on equal terms, and making a profit.

Mr. GUEST: Is there any suggestion made to that effect?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am now making the suggestion that the Committee should pass this Resolution.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 92.

Division No. 459.]
AYES.
[11.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Albery, Irving James
Courthope, Lieut. Col. Sir George L.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hartington, Marquess of


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Applin. Colonel R. V. K.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Haslam, Henry C.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Atkinson, C.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Balniel, Lord
Drewe, C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Barnett, Major sir Richard
Eden, Captain Anthony
Holt, Captain H. P.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Blundell, F. N.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Everard, W. Lindsay
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bridgeman, lit. Hon. William Clive
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Huntingfield, Lord


Briscoe, Richard George
Fielden, E. B.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Finburgh, S.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Jacob A. E.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Frece, Sir Walter de
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bullock, Captain M.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Ganzoni. Sir John
Lamb, J. Q.


Butt. Sir Alfred
Gates, Percy
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Caine, Gordon Hall
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Loder, J. de V.


Campbell, E. T.
Gower, Sir Robert
Lougher, L.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Grace, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Grant, J. A.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lumley, L. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grotrian, H. Brent
Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacDonald, R. (Catheart)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Cooper, A. Duff
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macintyre, Ian


Cope. Major William
Hammersley, S. S.
Macquisten, F. A.


Malone, Major P. B.
Remer, J. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Rice, Sir Frederick
Templeton, W. P.


Margesson, Capt. D.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Russell, Alexander Wert (Tynemouth)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Merriman, F. B.
Rye, F. G.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Warrender, Sir Victor


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Savery, S. S.
Watson, Rt. Hon, W. (Carlisle)


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wells, S. R.


Murchison, C. K.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Neville, R. J.
Skelton, A. N.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Nuttall, Ellis
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Pennefather, Sir John
Smithers, Waldron
Womersley, W. J.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Perring, William George
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Pielou, D. P.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Preston, William
Storry Deans, R.



Price, Major C. W. M.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Radford, E. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Mr. F. C. Thomson.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, F. (York, W. R, Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Barnes, A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barr, J.
Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John


Broad, F. A.
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Bromfield, William
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Taylor, R. A.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Compton, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thurtle, E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Varley, Frank B.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lawson, John James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Colonel Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Warne, G. H.


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacLaren, Andrew
Whiteley, W.


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Owen, Major G.
Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R, (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Groves. T.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sir Geoffrey Collins and Sir Robert


Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Riley, Ben
Hutchison.

Main Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 87.

Division No. 460.]
AYES.
[12.6 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Albery, Irving James
Briscoe, Richard George
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cooper, A. Duff


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cope, Major William


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bullock, Captain M.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Balniel, Lord
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Caine, Gordon Hall
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Campbell, E. T.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Drewe, C.


Blundell, F. N.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Boothby, R. J. G.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Bowyer, Capt, G. E. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lamb, J. Q.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Fielden, E. B.
Loder, J. de V.
Savery, S. S.


Finburgh, S.
Lougher, L.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts., Westb'y)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman
Skelton, A. N.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Lumley, L. R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gates, Percy
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Smithers, Waldron


Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macintyre, Ian
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Gower, Sir Robert
Macquisten, F. A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Grace, John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Storry Deans, R.


Grant, J. A
Margesson, Captain D.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Greene, W. p. Crawford
Merriman, F. B.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Grotrian, H. Brent
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Templeton, W. P.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hammersley, S. S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hartington, Marquess of
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Murchison, C. K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Haslam, Henry C.
Neville, R. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Nuttall, Ellis
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wells, S. R.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pennefather, Sir John
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Perring, William George
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pielou, D. P.
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Preston, William
Wise, Sir Fredric


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Womersley. W. J.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Radford, E. A.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Huntingfield, Lord
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H.
Remer, J. R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)



Jacob, A. E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Rye, F. G.
Captain Hacking and Mr. F. C.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandeman, A. Stewart



NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Barr, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Batey, Joseph
Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John


Broad, F. A.
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Bromfield, William
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan. G.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Cape. Thomas
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Taylor, R. A.


Collins, sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Compton, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thurtle, E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Varley, Frank B.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lawson. John James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Colonel Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Warne, G. H.


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. O. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Westwood, J.


Fenby, T. D.
MacLaren, Andrew
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Gillett, George M.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.



Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Ho'ghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Riley, Ben
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.




Henderson.

Resolved,

MANTLES FOR INCANDESCENT LIGHTING.

That during a period of five years from
the passing of an Act for giving effect to this Resolution the following duties of Customs shall be charged on the importation
into Great Britain or Northern Ireland of the following articles, that is to say: —

s.
d.


Mantles for incandescent lighting, whether collodionised or not the gross
6
0


Impregnated hose or stockings for use in the manufacture of such mantles the lb.
4
6

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Sixteen Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.